You are here:

Student Level of Commitment and Engagement with Ning as a Learning Management System
PROCEEDINGS

, , , , Iowa State University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Charleston, SC, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-67-9 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

Web-based technology developments have spawned a host of tools supporting communication, collaboration, and socialization in our information-dependent world. Even though a generation of digital natives is entering the teaching workforce, research has shown that they are as ill prepared to use technology for teaching and learning. Based on the idea that social networking environments can be used to organize and extend classroom activities, providing an opportunity for pre-service teachers to integrate communication technologies into their teaching practices, we investigated level of commitment and engagement with Ning as a learning management tool. Ning provided opportunities for community building as it allowed personalization, socialization, communication among class members, as well as organization of the classroom by allowing a convenient access to syllabus, class materials. Students reflected on these features as possible uses of the Ning in their future high school classrooms.

Citation

Karabulut, A., Braet, D., Lindstrom, D. & Niederhauser, D. (2009). Student Level of Commitment and Engagement with Ning as a Learning Management System. In I. Gibson, R. Weber, K. McFerrin, R. Carlsen & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2009--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2564-2569). Charleston, SC, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved November 29, 2023 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Benson, V. (2008). Is the digital generation ready for web 2.0-based learning. In Lytras, Miltiadis D.; Damiani, Ernesto; Ord ó ñez de Pablos, Patricia (Eds.), The Open Knowledge Society. A Computer Science and Information Systems Manifesto
  2. Benson, V. (2009). Embedding web 2.0 strategies in learning and teaching. In Lytras, Miltiadis D.; Damiani, Ernesto; Ord ó ñez de Pablos, Patricia (Eds.), Web 2.0: The business model (pp. 237-248). Springer US.
  3. Bianchini, G. (2008). Ning: about our company. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from http://about.ning.com/ Cameron, D. (2005, December). The net generation goes to university? Paper presented at the Journalism Education Association Conference. Surfers Paradise, Queensland, Australia.
  4. Culp, K.M., Honey, M. & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 279-307
  5. Facer, K., Furlong, J., Furlong, R., and Sutherland, R. (2003) Screen Play: Children and Computers in the Home, Routledge Falmer, London.
  6. Gee, J.P. (2000). Communities of practice in the new capitalism. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 515-523.
  7. Green, H. & Hannon, C. (2007). Their Space: Education for a Digital Generation. London. UK: DEMOS Study.
  8. Groth, L., Dunlap, K.L., & Kidd, J.K. (2007). Becoming technologically literate through technology integration in PK-12 preservice literacy courses: Three case studies. Reading Research and Instruction, 46(4), 363-386.
  9. Hargadon, S. (2009). Classroom 2.0. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from http://www.classroom20.com/
  10. Helfant, E. (2007). 21st Century Connections Blogs: Rethinking Assessments. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from http://21centuryconnections.com/node/641. Kvavik, R.B., Caruso, J.B., & Morgan, G. (2004). ECAR Study Of Students And Information Technology 2004: Convenience, Connection, and Control. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved February 21, 2007, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0405/rs/ers0405w.pdf
  11. Lane, L.M. (2008). Toolbox or trap? Course management systems and pedagogy. Educause Quarterly, 31(2), 4-6.
  12. Morgan, G. (2003, May). Key findings: Faculty use of course management systems. Boulder, Colorado: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved July 8, 2004, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ecar_so/ers/ERS0302/ekf0302.pdf S. 49. (2007, January 4). Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act. S. 49, 110th Congress. Retrieved Oct 16, 2008 from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/ Z?c110:S.49:
  13. Wade, S., Niederhauser, D.S., Cannon M., & Long, T. (2001). Electronic discussions in an issues course: Expanding the boundaries of the classroom. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 17(3), 4-9.
  14. Weiss, M. & Hanson-Baldauf, D. (2008). E-Mail in academia: expectations, use, and instructional impact. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 31(1), 42-50.

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

Suggest Corrections to References