You are here:

Making Multimedia Meaningful: Outcomes of Student Assessment in Online Learning PROCEEDING

, University of Melbourne, Australia ; , University of Calgary, Canada

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Washington, D.C., United States ISBN 978-1-939797-32-2 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

With the advancement of multimedia in learning management systems, online learning environments are no longer bound by text-based learning. Students and instructors need to work in an environment where there is intentional integration of multimedia that supports learning, teaching, and assessment. This case study investigated the intentional instructor use of multimedia and the impact on student learning tasks and assessment practice. From the findings, three themes were identified: the perception of multimedia as novel for students; student awareness of multimedia feedback as assistive in learning; and the integration of scaffolded learning through reflective activities. The following implications for practice address areas for creating effective online learning experiences when using multimedia: 1) students need support in using multimedia; 2) instructors need to unpack assumptions about student use of technology for learning; and 3) multimedia tools and supports need to be available in fostering robust learning experiences.

Citation

Johnson, C. & Lock, J. (2018). Making Multimedia Meaningful: Outcomes of Student Assessment in Online Learning. In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1542-1549). Washington, D.C., United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved September 23, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G., Lee, M.J.W., & Kenney, J. (2015). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from across-case analysis. Computers& Education, 86, 117.
  2. Jacobsen, M., Lock, J., & Friesen, S. (2013). Strategies for engagement: Knowledge building and intellectual engagement in participatory learning environments. Education Canada. Retrieved http://www.cea-ace.ca/educationcanada/article/strategies-engagement
  3. Johnson, C. (2017). Teaching music online: Changing pedagogical approach when moving to the online environment. London Review of Education, 15(3), 439–456.
  4. Johnson, T., Wisniewski, M., Kuhlemeyer, G., Isaacs, G., & Krykowski, J. (2012). Technology adoption in Higher Education: Overcoming anxiety through faculty bootcamp. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(2), 6372.
  5. Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer technology integration and student learning: Barriers and promise. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(60), 560-565.
  6. Lin, J., & Lai, Y. (2013). Harnessing collaborative annotations on online formative assessments. Journal of Educational Technology& Society, 16(1), 263-274.
  7. Lock, J., & Johnson, C. (2017). Learning from transitioning to new technology that supports online and blended learning: A case study. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 28(1), 49-64.
  8. Lock, J., & Johnson, C. (2015, December). Triangulating assessment of online collaborative Learning. Quarterly-1548-SITE 2018-Washington, D.C., United States, March 26-30, 2018
  9. Mayer, R.E. (2012). Multimedia Learning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  10. Melrose, S., & Bergeron, K. (2006). Online graduate study of healthcare learners’ perceptions of instructional immediacy. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(1). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v7i1.255Merriam,S.B., & Tisdell, E.J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  11. Meyer, A., Rose, D.H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST.
  12. Miles, M.B., Huberman, M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  13. Oztok, M., Zingaro, D., Brett C., & Hewitt, J. (2013). Exploring asynchronous and synchronous tool use in online courses. Computers and Education, 60(10), 87-94.
  14. Park, Y.J., & Bonk, C.J. (2007). Synchronous learning experiences: Distance and residential learners’ perspectives in a blended graduate course. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(3), 245-264.
  15. Prensky, M. (2012). From Digital Natives to digital wisdom: Hopeful essays for 21 st century learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
  16. Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  17. Sheffield, S.L.-M., McSweeney, J.M., & Panych, A. (2015). Exploring Future Teachers’ Awareness, Competence, Confidence, and Attitudes Regarding Teaching Online: Incorporating Blended/Online Experience into the Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Course for Graduate Students. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 45(3), 1-14.
  18. Swan, K. (2002). A constructivist model for thinking about learning online. In J. Bourne & J.C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education: Engaging Communities (pp. 13-30). Needham, MA: Sloan-C.
  19. Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 77-90.
  20. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

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.