You are here:

A Framework for Designing Higher Education e-Learning Environments
PROCEEDINGS

, University of Southern Queensland, Australia

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-60-0 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Full Text

Abstract

This paper describes a framework for the design of higher education learning and teaching (e-learning) environments. The framework has emerged from the author's doctoral research. The author, located at a regional, Australian university, collaborated with teachers from a polytechnic in Singapore to build the professional capacity of the group in the area of e-learning. The exploration of themes evident in the literature assisted in the creation of the design framework. Findings from the study which led to the design of the framework are briefly discussed and the principles and practices, which define that framework, are outlined. Implications for educators and educational institutions are discussed. It is an unrealistic expectation that a proposed framework is relevant to users in all educational environments, but it is anticipated that the framework could be applied to a wide variety of e-learning settings.

Citation

Reushle, S. (2006). A Framework for Designing Higher Education e-Learning Environments. In T. Reeves & S. Yamashita (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2006--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1405-1412). Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved January 27, 2023 from .

© 2006 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Anderson, T., & Kanuka, H. (2003). E-Research: Methods, strategies, and issues. Boston: Pearson Education.
  2. Garrison, D. (1997). Computer conferencing: The post-industrial age of distance education. Open Learning, 12 (2), 3-11.
  3. Berge, Z. (2000). New roles for learners and teachers in online higher education. Baltimore: University of Maryland System, UMBC. Retrieved March 29, 2006, from http://www.globaled.com/articles/BergeZane2000.pdfDick.B.(1993).Youwanttodoanactionresearchthesis?Howtoconductandreportactionresearch.RetrievedNovember11,2005,fromhttp://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/art/arthesis.html
  4. Herrington, J., Oliver, R., Herrington, T., & Sparrow, H. (2000). Towards a new tradition of online instruction: Using situated learning theory to design web-based units. Paper presented at the ASCILITE00 17th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Retrieved June 15, 2005, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/coffs00/papers/jan_herrington.pdf Hung, D. (2001). Theories of learning and computer-mediated instructional technologies. Education Media International, 281-287.
  5. Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interaction, discord, and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57-74.
  6. Kassop, M. (2003). Ten ways online education matches, or surpasses, face-to-face learning. The Technology Source, May/June. Retrieved January 16, 2006, from http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article & Id=1059
  7. Kimball L. (1998). Managing distance learning—new challenges for faculty. In R. Hazemi, S. Hailes, & S. Wilber (Eds.).The digital university: Reinventing the academy. New York: Springer.
  8. King, K.P. (2003). Keeping pace with technology: Educational technology that transforms. New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc. 2006, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol7/issue4/lapadat.html
  9. McDonald, J., & Reushle, S.E. (2000, June). Online interaction: An exploratory quantitative perspective. Proceedings of the CRIDALA 2000 conference. Hong Kong: Open University of Hong Kong.
  10. McKendree, J., & Mayes, J.T. (1997). “The vicarious learner”: Investigating the benefits of observing peer dialogues. CAL’97. Retrieved January 6, 2006, from http://www.media.uwe.ac.uk/masoud/cal97/papers/mckendre.htm
  11. Mayes, T. (2002). The technology of learning in a social world. In R. Harrison, F. Reeve, A. Hanson, & J. Clarke, (Eds.), Supporting lifelong learning: Vol. 1, Perspectives on learning. Routledge: London.
  12. Merriam, S.B., & Caffarella, R.S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  13. Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. In P. Cranton (Ed.), Transformative learning in action: Insights from practice. New directions for adult and continuing education, No. 74. (pp. 5-12). San Francisco:
  14. Russell, T. (1999). No significant difference phenomenon, Retrieved October 20, 2001, from http://cuda.teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdifference/ (no longer available)
  15. Salmon, G. (2002). Approaches to researching teaching and learning online. In C. Steeples& C. Jones (Eds.), Networked learning: Perspectives and issues (pp. 195-212), London: Springer.
  16. Sandlin, J.A. (2000, August). The politics of consumer education materials used in adult literacy classrooms. Adult Education Quarterly, 50 (4), 289-307.
  17. Steeples, C., Jones, C., & Goodyear, P. (2002). Beyond e-learning: A future for networked learning. In C. Steeples& C. Jones (Eds.). Networked learning: Perspectives and issues (pp. 323-342). London: Springer.
  18. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

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

Suggest Corrections to References