On
the whole it is not worth shelling out £50 for this book unless
you can answer YES to all of the following questions:
- Are you a researcher?
- Do you work in Higher Education?
- Are you interested in evaluation?
It is no more than a loose collection of research papers, few of
them groundbreaking. This book should have been less than half the
length. Some of the papers need pruning, others rejected. On the
other hand, a few are excellent. The authors of the papers also
make the mistake of thinking that all e-learning takes place in
higher education. It doesn’t. There’s far more e-learning
taking place in schools, corporates, defence, health, even at home.
In any case, I found myself working my way through all twenty papers
driven on by the thought that something fascinating would crop up.
It didn’t. In a loose collection of academic papers it’s
only fair to judge each paper on its own merit, so here goes.
Paper 1 - OK
Engineering of a Virtual Community Platform
A ‘user as editor’ model for collaboration on the web.
Nothing very new here
Paper 2 - OK
Innovative Approach to Teaching Database Design
Not that innovative as people have been using this approach to
software training for years. I’d also question the absurdly
small numbers of users.
Paper 3 - OK
A Model Driven Approach for Synchronous Dynamic Collaborative
E-learning
Apart from real confusion over terminology – CMS/LMS/LCMS,
which the authors actually get wrong. However, they are right to
point towards the pedagogic needs in such systems. I could see no
advantages in their system over the better-designed, already available
commercial systems.
Paper 4 - OK
top
Smart ProFlexLearn: An Intuitive Approach to VLE
The editor’s own paper has no screenshots for the product
and it was only at the end of the paper that I realised that there
were none because the products doesn’t exist. This is a learner
profile system making a great deal of fuss about learning styles.
A confused mixture of NLP, VARK, Myers-Briggs learning style theory
is discussed. There is at least, an attempt to map learning styles
to personality types. However, the paper ends rather abruptly –
the reason, as mentioned earlier, is that the system is still in
production.
Paper 5 - GOOD
An Expert-based Evaluation Concerning Human Factors in
ODL Programming
E-learning still has its ‘childhood diseases’. This
is why evaluation matters. But who should evaluate - users, experts
or both? Experts are cheaper and efficient, users are neither. I
was surprised to learn from this paper that EPIC (not us, but Executive
Process Interactive Control) could lead towards a ‘unified
theory of cognition’. Apart from this hopeless hyperbole this
paper asks some simple questions about evaluation and provides some
answers. It also has some useful checklists.
Paper 6 - SKIP
Integrated e-learning System
Basically another LMS. Yes, they claim it’s radically different
from all the others, but it’s not. Just what we need.
Paper 7 - SKIP
SEGEDON: Learning Support System
Another description of another product, this time a Learning
Support System to deliver lectures, content and PDA material. In
other words a LCMS. Join the queue in the corner.
Paper 8 - DULL
Creative e-transitions
Two applications in careers decision-making using e-learning but
sounds as though it would put you off work full stop.
Paper 9 - OK
Distributed constructionism
Sounded very academic, perhaps even interesting. Turned out to be
a paper on learning greek online, involving the use of users in
the design of the course. Yes – you’ve got it –
it was all Greek to me!
Paper 10 - OK
School Based Student Software design
Inconclusive paper that used tutors, native informants, designers
and testers in the design process.
top
Paper 11 - DULL
Catalyst for Education
Seems to have been smuggled in by mistake as it has nothing to do
with usability. It is merely a school case study from Turkey. Must
have been a free holiday for the editor. Glad to see my good friend
Clive Shepherd (one of Epic’s founders) referenced here.
Paper 12 - IRRELEVANT
Employing Intelligent and Adaptive Methods to Learning
AI once again hailed as the future, especially personal information
agents. Old topics never die.
Paper 13 - DULL
What we have learnt so far?
A rather messy paper on what we’re supposed to have learnt
about e-learning but is too general and misses almost all of the
useful research.
Paper 14 GOOD
Informal Interaction in Online Courses
The evaluative data in this paper is excellent with breakdowns of
messages between teachers to students, students to teachers and
students to students. The whether the messages were social, content,
admin, technical, teamwork or doubts. They found that most communication
is informal, casual and friendly. Interestingly they found that
students seemed to ignore punctuation, spelling and grammar. I liked
this paper as it opens up the idea that much learning takes place
through everyday communication on the web by messaging and email.
A fact ignored by most educators.
Paper 15 - OK
The Orientation and Disorientation of e-learners
A promising title, and a reasonable overview of the pitfalls in
e-learning including; motivation, isolation, social pressures, fear,
group dynamics, learner support, interface design and the appropriate
use of media. Nothing terribly new and doesn’t draw on the
excellent research that does exist in each of these areas. It’s
a sort of ramble.
top
Paper 16 - EXCELLENT
Ensuring Usability in International Web-Based E-learning
Systems
Andy Smith of the University of Luton looks at the cultural contexts
and cross-cultural usability. His 3 factor model is simple and useful:
- Interface issues
- Web-based learning issues
- Generic learning issues
Hofstede is the well worn path here with his five differences:
- Social position
- Relevance
- Cognitive abilities of teachers versus learner
- Expected patterns of behaviour
- Student/student interactions
“Think globally, act locally” is the advice given.
However, there’s a problem here. The idea that all cultures
could be defined through three dimensions now seems a little crude:
- power-distance
- collective-individual
- femininity-masculinity
There’s some exaggeration her as in cultural colour semantics
but some very useful points. For example, the structured access
model of institutions and teachers being the source of all knowledge
to more recent less-structured teacher and learner working together
model. Another is the varying need to protect learners from failure.
What Hofstede may have missed, as the research is now very old,
is that cultural differences may change and that a key agent of
change is technology, especially the web, computer games and mass
media such as TV and films.
Paper 17 - DULL
Cultural Education in the Media Age
Just plain dull.
Paper 18 - OK
Development and Evaluation of a New HTML browser Method
of presenting Reading material for Students with Low Vision
A neat little paper on adjusted CSS for the display of HTML for
students with low vision of partial sight. It points towards built-in
improvements in browsers to solve accessibility problems.
Paper 19 - GOOD
A Sign language Teaching System
A fine paper on teaching sign language. It tackles three problems:
1. The lack of information about non-manual gestures
2. No feedback on learners’ gestures
3. No look-up system for unknown gestures
The final system did a credible job in teaching Japanese sign language
and points towards a system with cheaper hardware and more refinements.
Very interesting. With actual screen shots!
Paper 20 - BIZARRE
Precursors to Web-Based methodologies: Lessons We Can Learn
This final paper is truly bizarre. It seems to be recommending a
return to early behaviourist programmed learning techniques and
teaching machines. The return of Skinner. These guys need to get
out more. There is something of value in this topic as recent cognitive
and constructivist theories have ignored the role of reinforcement
and practice in learning, but this paper doesn’t address these
issues.
Donald Clark, 2004
top
