You are here:

Inclusive digital online environments as a device for pedagogic differentiation: a taxonomy proposal ARTICLE

, Centre for Research and Intervention in Education (CIIE), Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Porto, Rua Alfredo Allen, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal/ RECI- IP ; , Centre for Research and Intervention in Education (CIIE), Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Porto, Rua Alfredo Allen, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal

Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society Volume 12, Number 4, ISSN 1826-6223 e-ISSN 1826-6223 Publisher: Italian e-Learning Association

Abstract

The use of technology and specifically digital environments in training and education in both formal and non-formal contexts is becoming increasingly more common. These types of technical-pedagogical solutions, however, may not always provide a sense of belonging to trainees, which may eventually lead to non-participation or even dropping out. Although some studies have identified possible reasons for this type of lack of association and abandonment, there are still areas that require further research, such as the configuration of these digital environments as pedagogical-differentiation devices (Cortesão & Stoers, 1999) or assessments of their social-inclusion potential. This paper proposes a classification of the social-inclusion potential of digital environments, which was the validated result of data gathered from a query submitted to 20 e-learning experts and a literature review. Qualitative analysis of the data (Bowen, 2009) led to the identification of four potential levels of inclusion, from “exclusive digital learning environment” to “inclusive digital learning environment”, and determination of their separate pedagogical-didactical and technological characteristics. The importance of this paper lies in the possibility of using this taxonomy to analyse how digital environments are being conceived and used today.

Citation

Monteiro, A. & Leite, C. (2016). Inclusive digital online environments as a device for pedagogic differentiation: a taxonomy proposal. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 12(4),. Italian e-Learning Association. Retrieved October 19, 2018 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Bowen, G.A. (2009), Document analysis as a qualitative research method, Qualitative Research Journal, 9 (2), 27 – 40.
  2. Cortesão, L. (2012), Professor: produtor e/ou tradutor de conhecimentos? Trabalhando no contexto do arco-íris sociocultural da sala de aula, Educ. Real., 37 (3), 719-735.
  3. Clarke, A. (2010), E-learning and social inclusion, in: Making IT Personal e-learning@ greenwich conference.11-18, London, University of Greenwich.
  4. Criu, R., Ceobanu, C. (2013), E-learning implications for adult learning, TOJDE, 14(2), 56-65.
  5. European Commission (2000), eEurope 2002: An information society for all, URL: http://goo.gl/ANIHSh (accessed on 15th February 2015).
  6. European Commission (2010), Communication from the commission Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, URL: goo.gl/wI4Y12 (accessed on 15th February 2015).
  7. Eynon, R., Helsper, E. (2011), Adults learning online: digital choice and/or digital exclusion?, New media& Society, 13(4), 534-551.
  8. Germain-Rutherford, A., Kerr, B. (2014), An inclusive approach to online learning environments: Models and resources, TOJDE, 9 (2), 64-85.
  9. Gorard, S., Selwyn, N. (2005), Towards a le@rning society? the impact of technology on patterns of participation in lifelong learning, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(1), 71-89.
  10. Hassanein, O. (2015), E-learning instructional design and the mismatch between e-learners and e-educators’ learning styles, IJEL, 14(1), 5-28.
  11. Mavroudi, A., Hadzilacos, T. (2013), Learning needs analysis of collaborative e-classes in semi-formal settings: The REVIT Example, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(5), 211-239.
  12. McDougall, J. (2015), The quest for authenticity: a study of an online discussion forum and the needs of adult learners, Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 55(1), 94-112.
  13. Mcloughlin, C., Oliver, R. (1999), Instructional design for cultural difference: A case study of the indigenous online learning in a tertiary context, URL: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.33.9346 (accessed on 13rd January 2015).
  14. Murray, S., Mitchell, J. (2013), The ‘double-edged sword’ of the adult learning environment, Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 53(1), 111-128.
  15. Torres-Diaz, J., Duart, J. (2015), Determinants of digital inequality in universities: the case of Ecuador, Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 11(3), 149-161.

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.

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. Analysing Accessibility, Usability and Readability of Web-based Learning Materials – Case study of e-learning portals in Slovenia

    Marko Radovan & Mojca Perdih

    Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society Vol. 14, No. 1 (Jan 31, 2018)

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.