From the Editors …
Welcome to
the April 2011 issue of the Learning Technology newsletter on Advanced Learning
Technologies for Disabled and Non-Disabled People.
The rapid
evolution of ICT offers unprecedented opportunities for the integration of disabled
people in the society. Advanced learning technologies can adapt to the needs,
requirements and preferences of each individual user, therefore they can
provide equal access to all students.
In fact, even the term disability is re-defined in this context, as “a mismatch between the needs of the learner
and the education offered; it is therefore not a personal trait but an artifact
of the relationship between the learner and the learning environment or
education delivery” (http://www.imsglobal.org).
This issue
introduces some papers which address the development of learning technologies
for disabled and non-disabled people. Morris describes his personal experience
as well as the results of a study which investigates how technology can change
the education and life of people with spinal cord injury. Chatzara &
Stamatis focus on adults with learning difficulties and attention disorders,
and claim that the simulation of emotional intelligence in a computer system
can have a positive impact on the way users interact with the system and in
learning overall. Mancilla & Muro
describe the development of tangible interfaces to support teaching of reading
and writing for children with Down syndrome. Minotti et al., outline some
guidelines, tools, etc, for supporting Universal Design for Learning. Huglin et
al., outline some guidelines for making online courses accessible by disabled
users/learners. Finally, Johnson & Klenner-Moore describe DyKnow, an eLearning system used across different universities to
facilitate access to various learning resources for both able-bodied and
disabled users/learners.
The issue
also includes a section with regular articles (i.e. articles that are not
related to the special theme). Johnson et al., present the results of a survey
which investigated student perceptions of a CMS in a particular university. Queirós
& Leal describe an eLearning environment (currently under implementation)
for programming languages learning. Finally, Konetes & Leidman discuss the
technical and pedagogical aspects involved in the development and
operationalization of an online media production course.
We
sincerely hope that this issue will help in keeping you abreast of the current
research and developments in learning technologies applications for disabled
and non-disabled people. We also would like to take the opportunity to invite
you to contribute your own work on technology enhanced learning (e.g. work in
progress, project reports, dissertation abstracts, case studies, and event
announcements) in this newsletter, if you are involved in research and/or
implementation of any aspect of advanced learning technologies. For more
details, please refer to the author guidelines at http://www.ieeetclt.org/content/authors-guidelines.
Special
theme of the next issue: Adopting Standards and Specifications for
Educational Content
Special
issue editor: Prof. Luis Anido Rifón
Universidade de Vigo, Spain
lanido@det.uvigo.es
Deadline for submission of articles: May
31, 2011
Articles
that are not in the area of the special theme are most welcome as well and will
be published in the regular article section!
Editors
Sabine Graf
Athabasca University, Canada
sabineg@athabascau.ca
Charalampos Karagiannidis
University of Thessaly, Greece
karagian@uth.gr
Special
Theme Section: Advanced Learning Technologies for Disabled and Non-Disabled People
Spinal cord
injury (SCI) is catastrophic, in an instant it destroys lives, it smashes hopes and dreams. Being able to live
independently with SCI requires an individual to relearn the most basic
everyday things like, dressing, toileting, washing, eating, healthcare etc. In
fact it’s easier to say everything that involves any movement needs reassessing
and adaption to some degree. This can be quite a problem, I know this first
hand I’m tetraplegic as a result of a spinal cord injury. The key to being
successful and get the most out of the rehabilitation process is to frame
everything as a problem in your own personal context, and use a problem solving
strategy to develop a solution. The traditional method of learning to live with
SCI is being taught to obey a set of rules unrelated to the individuals past
experiences. Clearly one size fits all approach is unsatisfactory, what does an
individual do when faced with a new or changed situation? It is unlikely to
come with a rule book.
Successfully living with SCI involves
successfully learning.
I’ve always
been curious about how education can improve the quality of life of people with
an acquired, life changing condition such as spinal cord injury.
Currently
I’m in my 2nd year of a PGCE at Cardiff University; I’m also a volunteer IT
tutor at my local SCI rehabilitation unit. My personal experience of working as
an educator at the spinal unit has shown that the patients are generally keen
to learn new IT and assistive technology skills in addition to learning the
skills necessary to survive and thrive. The equipment we currently use, such as
Dragon Naturally Speaking and the Smartnav head mouse combined with the PC are
ideal forms of learning technologies for the spinally injured. They allow total
computer control and, importantly, they are relatively inexpensive. These
adaptations have allowed individuals with SCI to be on a reasonably equal
footing with the able bodied in terms of IT use, and they can be easily used in
any learning environments. As a result of my work in educating patients during
the rehabilitation process I developed a hypothesis - ‘can education post SCI
help to improve the quality of life’- and was keen to test it out. There is a
surprising lack of research regarding returning to education post spinal cord
injury so I was eager to examine the issues.
Luckily the
Cardiff PGCE includes a small scale research project. A small 7 question online
survey was created, the survey asked respondents at what age and how soon post
injury did they return to education, and to describe the ways in which it was
beneficial to living with SCI, links to the survey were placed into several SCI
online forums explaining the purpose of the research, and kindly asking for
cooperation. This approach overcame the geographical spread of SCI individuals,
and yielded a decent amount of respondents (40 in total)
When I
began to analyze the results I was touched by the candour displayed by each
respondent, each survey represented a personal journey from devastating injury
back to relatively normal, if a little different, way of life, via various
educational routes. They mirrored my own educational journey since 1997, when I
was injured in a fall aged 25.
In total 40
respondents completed the survey, 31 had returned to Education post injury, 9
had not RTE post injury. These 9 were excluded from the study. 31 (100%) of the
respondents said that they found a return to education to be beneficial in
dealing with spinal cord injury. The definitions of beneficial in these
instances were many and varied, to learn new skills, to overcome boredom,
social interaction, retrain for a new career, and relish the mental challenge.
The data
also shows that more SCI individuals are returning to education in the last
decade than in the previous 50 years, showing that education has become
accessible due to the ADA/DDA ensuring better access to disabled students,
provision of online courses, advances in assistive technology, better support
from the educators, and wider availability of funding providing access to
courses. All SCI individuals had gained employment after leaving education.
In summary,
it is not claimed that education post SCI is a panacea to all the problems of
living with spinal cord injury but the benefits of a returning to education can
help in improving problem solving skills, intellectual stimulation,
communication, physical interaction, forming friendships
As a SCI
individual one gets bombarded with pessimistic statistics daily, significantly
higher risk of death due to secondary complications, extremely low chance of
recovering functional movement. It is good to produce some positive statistics,
and to say to the patients these are my findings, they show positive advantages
to returning to education post injury.
The
advantages are not particularly revolutionary, or even new they are experienced
by everybody who attends a lecture or goes to a class on a daily basis but when
applied to an individual with a spinal cord injury they can lead to greater
empowerment and increased quality of life.
Simon Morris
simonjmorris@gmail.com
Abstract. Emotions
play a primary role in human intelligence, decision making and learning. We
propose an e-learning system that has the potential to accommodate
personalization, based on learners’ profile and emotional behavior. Our
research focuses on adults with Learning Difficulties (LD) and attention
disorders and claims that the simulation of emotional intelligence in a
computer system can have a positive impact on the way users interact with the
system and in learning overall.
Learners
often spend a part of their time learning through computers. Researchers report that learning must be understood as a social process
rather than the straight perception of knowledge (Gareis, 2006; Beale &
Creed, 2009). They also argue that the social aspect of learning is diminished
when it is done online.
A critical
factor of the social aspect of learning is the emotional communication between
students and educators. This emotional behavior that a teacher needs to adopt
in a physical classroom is different for each group of learners. It depends on
their personal characteristics and is missing in e-learning applications due to the
physical absence of the educator. This is relevant to all groups of students;
our research though, focuses on students with LD who often have attention
disorders and low self-esteem due to continuous unsuccessful completion of
learning tasks. They often find it difficult to
organize the learning environment, manage their time and interact in a social
context. Researchers argue (Beale & Creed,
2009) that the use of agents may contribute to this obstacle through
their possibility to portray emotional reactions and adopt their behavior
accordingly to user’s emotional states.
Providing
applications that simulate emotional intelligence and human behavior requires a
radical change in how people perceive computers in general and learning in
particular. The interaction between users and agents that have adaptive behavior
is complex (Kort et al, 2001) especially if this behavior is adopted regarding
user’s emotional states.
We propose
the use of an intelligent emotional pedagogical agent to improve the
communication between the user and the machine for distance learning systems
that might serve for better interaction and create a social environment for
learners from different backgrounds.
We use an
intelligent emotional agent who feels empathy for the user (rewarding him for
good results, give him courage for bad results), “understands” her emotion and
adapt accordingly. The genre of the application affects the emotional process
too. The fact that the agent not only adapts its own behavior but adapts the
interface of the application itself in order to suit to the individual’ s with
LD, needs and preferences, creates a personalized version of the application
which cutters for the specific student. This happens as a dialogue between the
agent and the user so the student is always aware of the changes that take
place in the application, therefore she feels in control of the educational
procedure.
This
e-learning model does not cutter for all students with LD. For instance
learners with autism which have LD too and attention disorders need another
pedagogical approach. Previous work (Sansosti &
Powell-Smith, 2008) showed that they do not correspond well to emotional
reactions due to their difficulty to recognize emotions. This kind of
communication may be perceived negatively for this group of learners.
Two instances of the
e-learning environment with personalized agents.
In order to
incorporate adaptiveness in a structured and coherent way ontology and
adaptation rules for behavior representation are included in our study.
The
combination of all media in animated agents gives them the ability to show
empathy, comfort, and sympathy for the users and might have the potential to improve
the quality and the effectiveness of education (Baylor & Kim, 2003; Lee et
al. 2007). Emotions have been introduced in order to establish high degree of
communication between the application and the user (or users). Research that
took place in MIT (Kort et al, 2001) addresses the emotions that are relevant
in learning: Anxiety-Confidence,
Boredom-Fascination, Frustration-Euphoria, Dispirited-Encouraged, Terror-Enchantment. We used that axis in our work and these
are the emotions that are portrayed through rich multimedia in agent’s
behavior.
The agent is able
to “understand” how the user feels by “recording” user’ actions and result to
conclusions about user’s emotional state. The user profiles that are feed into
the system give some initial information about the user. This information is
added up to the assumptions that the agent makes about user’s emotional state.
The information that the system collects (from user’s direct input and from
user’s actions) are feed into the model. The learning algorithms are linked to
the emotional process as we conceive learning and emotions as related units of
the model. With the use of Intelligent Emotional Agents, a more efficient
communication channel between the user and the machine is created that can
improve the distance learning development for all users, respectively to their
own personal learning profile.
References
1.
Beale,
R. & Creed, C. (2009). Affective interaction: How emotional
agents affect users, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Volume 67, Issue 9, Pages 755-776.
2.
Gareis K. (2006). Benchmarking Lifelong Learning and eLearning in
Regions: Measuring What Really Counts. Paper to be presented at eChallenges
2006 Conference, 25-27 October, Barcelona.
3.
Kort
B., Reilly R., Picard R., (2001). An Affective Model of Interplay between
Emotions and Learning: Reengineering Educational Pedagogy-Building a Learning
Companion, pp.0043, Second IEEE
International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT'01).
4.
Lee,
T. Y., Chang, C. W., & Chen, G. D. (2007). Building an Interactive Caring
Agent for Students in Computer-based Learning Environments. In Proc. International Conference on Advanced
Learning Technologies (Niigata, Japan, July 18-20, 2007), pp.300-304.
5.
Sansosti,
F. J., & Powell-Smith, K. A. (2008). Using Computer-Presented Social
Stories and Video Models to Increase the Social Communication Skills of
Children With High-Functioning Autism Spectrum
Disorders. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, Volume 10, pp. 162-178.
Konstantina Chatzara
University of Thessaly, Greece
chatzara@uth.gr
Demosthenes
Stamatis
Alexander TEI of Thessaloniki, Greece
demos@it.teithe.gr
Introduction
Teaching how to read and write to a child with Down
Syndrome (DS) is a hard educational task that requires special educational
techniques. This syndrome causes disorders in the mechanisms of attention,
state of alert, memory, correlation, analysis, and abstract thinking. Taking
all these characteristics into account concludes that the learning is slow and
is necessary to follow a step by step process [1].
Nowadays, there
are educational methods specially designed to consider the characteristics
previously mentioned for teaching a person with DS. One of these methods, is
the published in the
book “Down syndrome: Reading and writing” (from
now on: Troncoso’s
method) [1].
The
pedagogical approach that the book applies is the discriminative-perceptual
learning. This is, teaching a kid to perceive sounds and relate them to actions
or objects (e.g., repeat several times a written word to relate the writing to
the sound). In the same way, the children can learn to discriminate among
various elements to choose from. An example of the utilization of the method
will be explained:
Material:
·
Image-card. Contains an image and underneath
the image goes a word that represents it (see Figure 1 left side).
·
Word-card. Two of these are required. It has
the same word that was used in the image-card (see Figure 1 right side).
Figure 1 - Image-card and word-cards
Exercises:
1.
The
teacher reads the word in the image-card repeatedly, pointing at it. Then, the
teacher asks the kid to read the card.
2.
The
teacher points at the child that both cards have the same word written on them,
and he asks the kid to read the card. After that, the teacher indicates the kid
to put one word over the other saying “Put Miriam over Miriam”.
3.
The
kid needs to know that both cards have the same word and that the word
represents the image of the image-card.
The purpose
of these exercises is that the child can relate the word to the image and
recognize the word without the image.
This
investigation proposes the use of the mentioned method enhanced through the
interaction with computationally-increased physical objects. This work mainly
aims at examining the potential of tangible interfaces for supporting
innovative pedagogies such as learning of children with DS.
Tangible interfaces
It has been
proven that using tangible interfaces offers some benefits in supporting
teaching [2], have been tested on children with autism, which is a condition
with attention deficit that is also found in the DS, demonstrating favorable
results [3]. Studies like [4] show that are useful because they promote an
active participation, which helps with the learning process. These interfaces
do not intimidate non-expert users and encourage exploratory, expressive, and
experimental activities. Figure 2 shows an analytic framework that explains the
factors that might influence whether tangible interfaces might support learning
and how they can do so.
Figure 2 - Analytic framework on
tangible interfaces for learning. Source: [5]
Using these
results as a departure point, tangible interfaces will be used in this research
in order to prove their feasibility. Therefore, a design of an interactive
multi-touch concept has been proposed, with an integration of tangible elements
and software applications using pedagogical fidelity that refers to
technology's representation with pedagogical accuracy.
The user
interface is a tabletop and a group of tools digitally augmented (didactical
material for the used method) that includes models of the picture-cards and word-cards,
these ones would be labeled with augmented reality tags so they can be
recognized by the software. To illustrate the functionality of the system, we
present the following usage scenario that describes how a child would interact
with their tabletop and the tangibles items:
Patty is a child with DS,
she goes to a special school that fits her needs. This school uses the
Troncoso’s method [1] applied into a tangible interface. Patty takes classes
using it, twice a week she gets at school early for her classes. In these
interventions, her teacher uses the technology with an exercise of relating a
picture to a word, projecting an image-card and giving her three different
tangible items. Patty has to choose the item that correspond to the projected
image and put it on top of it.
Architecture
In order to
achieve the system’s functionality we are proposing a multi-layer system. Next,
we describe the system’s architecture (figure 3).
Figure 3 - Architecture overview
The lower
layer is the hardware layer which generates the raw data tracking in format of
a video stream; this is by using a projector and a webcam.
After that,
the information is interpreted by the interpretation layer which translates the
movements of the hands into gestures and recognizes the augmented reality tags
on the tangible objects.
At the end,
the user interface layer, this layer takes care of generating the visible
output for the user. It receives the events of the interpretation layer.
Conclusions
This work
in progress propose to improve the process of learning of reading and writing
to children with DS, through the use of tangible interfaces. With the
implementation of this system we pretend to make an impact on children with
this syndrome and eventually to help the Troncoso’s method to give better
results through technology.
References
[1] María
Troncoso and Mercedes del Cerro, Síndrome de
Down: Lectura y escritura: Fundación Iberoamericana Down21, 2009.
[2] Paul
Marshall, "Do tangible interfaces enhance learning?,"
in TEI'07, 2007.
[3] Wendy
Keay-Bright, "Tangible Technologies as Interactive Play Spaces for
Children with Learning Difficulties: The Reactive Colors Project," The
International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, 2008.
[4] Anna
Carreras and Narcís Parés, Diseño de una
instalación interactiva destinada a
enseñar conceptos abstractos.
[5] Paul
Marshall, Yvonne Rogers, and Eva Hornecker, Are tangible interfaces really any
better than other kinds of interfaces?, 2007.
Pedro César Santana Mancilla
University of
Colima, Mexico
psantana@ucol.mx
Bárbara Paola Muro Haro
University of
Colima, Mexico
pao_muro@ucol.mx
Abstract
In this article, online course design pedagogy and
tools are discussed for both disabled and non-disabled online learners.
Additionally, important principles, resources, and tools for Universal Design
for Learning (UDL) are addressed.
Pedagogy
A common theme related to online learning and pedagogy
is that there is disappointment in the lack of pedagogical innovation or change
in relation to the expansion of e-learning and online course delivery (Hannon
& D’Netto, 2007; Juhary, 2007). It is often noted that the courseware, the
tools for online course delivery, are prohibitive to innovation and change,
that these tools are instead designed for administrative purposes to “manage
learners” (Kim & Bonk, 2006, p. 26) and “facilitate the process of
learning-management delivery” (Juhary, 2007, p. 379). Thus, the same
pedagogical issues that haunt face-to-face courses are exacerbated in online
courses. Where online courses should be learner-centered, they remain
teacher-centered and where they should be providing rich learning environments
that are interactive, project-based, and collaborative, they are places where
learners feel isolated and lacking in peer engagement (Hannon & D’Netto,
2007; Juhary, 2007).
These pedagogical issues become even more problematic
for learners with disabilities. While e-learning and online course delivery
present endless opportunities to foster deep understanding of contextual
materials and information (Bonk, 2009), online course designers are confronted
with a plethora of challenges presented by adults who are either new to,
intimidated by, or in some way prohibited by technology innovations, Web 2.0
tools, and new methods for acquiring information online (November, 2008;
EDUCAUSE, 2003).
Pedagogy underlying online course design recognizes
that that there is more than one method for instruction, for no one technique
can meet the needs of every user. This is especially true for adults with
disabilities, for whom the Internet may be their primary vehicle for learning,
accessing information, and communicating with others (Kaye, 2000). With this in
mind, it is critical that online course designers take into account the many
individual differences among learners, especially individuals with disabilities
who acquire knowledge in different ways. Presenting materials in numerous ways
depending upon the needs, learning styles, access issues, and preferences of
all users is critical to online course design (Chen, 2010).
Tools
New technologies for non-disabled learners are emerging
at a prolific rate, concurrent with trends toward greater interactivity and
collaboration and more learner-generated content (Bonk, 2009; Goswami &
Gokulnath, 2010). These technologies include tools such as YouTube (video
creation and hosting), Google Docs (collaborative document creation), Delicious
(social bookmarking), Skype (webconferencing), VoiceThread (multimedia
discussion), and Synote (multimedia web resource management).
New technologies for disabled learners are not as
prolific, yet there is continual development for tools that enhance
accessibility when designing online courses for disabled learners. Tools for
the visually impaired include RoboBraille (text to Braille or audio), Audacity
(audio creation and editing), and VoiceOver (powerful screen access application
for Apple devices). Tools for the hearing impaired include CCforFlash Player
(caption-capable Flash video player) and YouTube (closed-captioning).
One excellent tool everyone should have bookmarked is
the Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool (WAVE), offered free of charge by WebAIM
(www.webaim.org). WAVE aids online designers by offering a Web accessibility
evaluation tool that marks the original web page with embedded icons and
indicators that reveal accessibility issues contained on that page
(www.WebAIM.org). In addition, the International World Wide Web Consortium’s
(W3C) Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) was created in order to ensure full
Web accessible for individuals with disabilities (www.w3.org/WAI) and is one of
the foremost authorities on web accessibility.
Universal Design for
Learning (UDL)
While none of these technologies guarantee full access
to online course content for disabled learners, a number of promising tools,
such as WAVE, are emerging for evaluating accessibility and designing and/or
revising online courses to fully meet Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
standards. Principles underlying UDL must be applied when designing online
courses (Schelly, Davies, & Spooner, 2011) in order to eliminate as many
barriers as possible. This includes everything from utilizing the accessibility
tools provided by the CMS, to designing alternative formats to products,
resources, and media, and ensuring that various modes of computer-mediated
communications (i.e., online forums, blogs) are accessible to every student.
Fully appreciating the need for UDL will ensure full
access for all users, including individuals with disabilities; participants
using text, voice, screen readers, earlier versions or text-based browsers;
adults with varying levels of literacy, comprehension, fluency of language(s),
and learning styles; individuals whose comfort level and familiarity with
technology is new or low; and everyone who has a slow Internet connection,
timed access, or limited access (Coombs, 2010).
References
Bart, Mary. (2009). ‘The World is Open'
captures the transformative powers of web technologies. Faculty
Focus. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from
http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/trends-in-higher-education/the-world-is-open-captures-the-transformative-powers-of-web-technologies/
Bonk, C.J. (2009). The world is open: How
web technology is revolutionizing education. Jossey-Bass: California.
Chen, M. (2010). Education nation: Six leading
edges of innovation in our schools. Jossey-Bass: California.
Coombs, N. (2010). Making
online teaching accessible: Inclusive course design for students with
disabilities. Jossey-Bass: California.
EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research
(2003). Impact and challenges of e-learning. In Supporting E-Learning in Higher Education. Retrieved
March 12, 2011 from
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0303/rs/ers03036.pdf
Goswami, S. & Gokulnath, R.P.
(2010).
Innovative course design of course activities to promote collaboration and
community. Proceedings from the Sloan Consortium ALN Conference, November 5,
2010.
Hannon, J. & D’Netto, B. (2007). Cultural diversity online:
student engagement with learning technologies. International
Journal of Educational Management, 21(5). 418-432.
Juhary, J. (2007). Pedagogy
consideration for e-Learning in a military learning environment. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(4). 375-382.
Kaye, H.S. (2000). Computer and Internet use
among people with disabilities. Disability Statistics Report (13).
Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability
and Rehabilitation Research.
Kim, K.-J. & Bonk, C.J. (2006). The
future of online teaching and learning in higher education: The survey says.
Educause Quarterly, 29(4). 22-30.
November, A.
(2008). Web Literacy for Educators. Corwin Press: California.
Jennifer A. Minotti
Education
Development Center, Inc., USA
jminotti@edc.org
Ruth Sheehan
Lifework
Directions, LLC, USA
lifeworkdirections@att.net
Julia L. Parra
New Mexico State
University, USA
juparra@nmsu.edu
Introduction
The population of students with disabilities at the
postsecondary level in the United States has grown from 9% in 2000 to nearly
11% in 2008; this upward trend is expected to continue in the future [1]. At
the same time, the number of postsecondary courses offered online has also
increased substantially. According to a report commissioned by the Sloan
Consortium [2], more than 20% of higher education students in the United States
were enrolled in at least one online course in the fall of 2007, representing a
12% increase over 2006. It seems likely, then, that the number of students with
disabilities enrolled in online courses will increase as well.
In their creation of online courses, instructional
designers may inadvertently overlook the needs of learners with disabilities.
However, creating accessible online courses isn’t merely a “nice to do”
activity; it is required by federal law. Section 504 of the Vocational
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, for example, specifically prohibits discrimination
against individuals with disabilities by any federal agency receiving federal
funds; this includes colleges and universities.
Two high-profile lawsuits have been filed recently by
the American Federation of the Blind (AFB) and the American Council of the
Blind (ACB). The first case involves a pilot project undertaken by a coalition
of universities in conjunction with Amazon.com to test the use of Amazon’s
Kindle DX electronic book reader in the college classroom. Although the Kindle
DX had a “read-aloud” feature, the controls to access this feature were
inaccessible to individuals who are blind [3]. The second case, filed by the
AFB on behalf of blind students and professors at Penn State, cited “pervasive and
ongoing discrimination” due to inaccessible technologies used on campus [4];
technologies cited include learning management systems
used for online courses, departmental web sites, and the university’s library
catalogue.
Designing with
Accessibility in Mind
Fortunately, the online environment can be adapted
fairly easily to make course content accessible to students with disabilities;
numerous articles and websites are available to assist with this task [5-7].
When designing your course, keep in mind the needs of students with visual or
hearing impairments, as well as those with cognitive or motor disabilities.
Ensure your online course is easy to read and
understand. Keep language simple and conversational, using as
few words as possible. Although unique fonts and backgrounds increase
the visual appeal, these features can make websites difficult to operate for
people with disabilities. Large, plain text and high color contrast are best
for people with visual impairments. If possible, offer picture magnification or
include a short job-aid explaining where students can find the picture
magnification option on popular browsers.
If you use color as a method of categorizing topics or
coding items, ensure that there are other designations such as shapes, patterns
and color, or text and color, so someone who is color blind or has a visual
impairment can understand the coding.
Make sure you’ve offered multiple options for how
information is represented in an online course. For example, include captions
or transcripts as alternatives to audio files for students who are deaf or hard
of hearing. Many people with visual impairments use screen readers that will
read text aloud; thus, it is important to include textual descriptions of
photos and graphics for students who fit this category. Ensure that there is a
text equivalent for every non-text object on the page; this should describe the
purpose of the graphic, image, or sound. Most learning management systems offer
instructors the option of adding an Alt-Tag to such objects, ensuring that all
non-text elements of the course are accompanied by a text equivalent.
Hyperlinks should provide users with alternative text to describe where the
link will take them. Keep in mind, though, that the descriptions should be
relevant to what they are captioning and also be helpful to the reader; an
Alt-Tag that says “click here” is not informative.
Because screen readers only read text from left to
right, it’s important to label tables with row and column headers; this will
allow a user with visual impairments to make sense of the data contained within
the table.
If you are converting documents to PDFs, make sure
that you save them as text, rather than as an image. When PDFs are saved as
text, screen readers can understand them. If you are scanning documents and
don’t have access to the original, try scanning them in as a word processor
document using optical character recognition (OCR) software, and then
converting them to a text PDF. PDF documents can also be tagged to increase accessibility.
More information on PDF accessibility can be found at
http://www.webaim.org/techniques/acrobat/
The course should include a link to the institution’s
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) policy, if available; a statement
explaining to the students how to access the institution’s disabilities support
services should be included as well [8].
Conclusions
The explosion of online learning in recent years has
provided new learning opportunities for people with disabilities. With mindful
planning, course content can be made accessible to students who may have been
unable to participate in the past, allowing accommodations and preferences for
them so that they can participate in the learning process with their peers.
References
[1] U.S. Government Accountability Office.
(2008). Higher education and disability: A report to the chairman, Committee on
Education and Labor, House of Representatives (Report No. GAO-10-33).
Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1033.pdf
[2] Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from
http://sloanconsortium.org/sites/default/files/staying_the_course-2.pdf
[3] Bagenstos, S. R. (2010, April 22).
Justice News: Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights
Samuel R. Bagenstos Testifies Before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Retrieved from
http://www.justice.gov/crt/speeches/2010/crt-speech-100422.html
[4] Parry, M. (2010, November 12). Penn
State accused of discriminating against blind students. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/penn-state-accused-of-discriminating-against-blind-students/28154
[5] CANnect. (2010). How-to
guide for creating accessible online learning. Retrieved from
http://www.sloan-c.org/cannect/projectone/index.php
[6] Michigan Virtual University. (2010). Standards for quality online courses. Retrieved from
http://standards.mivu.org/standards/access/
[7] Rose, R. M., & Blomeyer, R. L.
(2007). Access and equity in online classes and virtual schools: North American
Council for Online Learning. Retrieved from
www.inacol.org/docs/NACOL_EquityAccess.pdf
[8] Quality Matters. (2009). Standard 8:
Accessibility rubric with annotation notes.
Linda Huglin
Boise State
University
lhuglin@boisestate.edu
Shannon Rist
Boise State
University
shannonrist@u.boisestate.edu
Bob Casper
Boise State
University
bobcasper@boisestate.edu
Introduction
Active
learning describes various models of instruction that focus on giving ownership
of the learning to the learner and encourages active presence during the
experience. Students are guided by the professor, but encouraged to be
cognitively present in order to benefit from the learning experience.
Johnstone
et al. noted that multi-modal and “instructional approaches that accommodate
are beneficial to students.” The more ways the students can interact in the
learning process, the better. When information is presented through several
different channels, students are more likely to be successful.
“The well-designed
instructional environment employs technologies that enable students to interact
with the learning experience in ways that are relevant and enhance learning and
can be accessed remotely” (Klenner-Moore, 2011, in press).
DyKnow
DyKnow
Vision™ is an instructional teaching tool used by educators to encourage
collaboration and active learning, both within and outside of the classroom
setting. DyKnow Vision allows for student access after class hours to review
the class lecture (audio recording capabilities) and
class notes taken on the computer (real-time play-back features). This ability
to review information on demand aids in retention and transfer of the learning.
DyKnow
Vision provides an interface for interaction that incorporates note taking with
writing and pen tools. The teacher is able to share PowerPoint slides,
graphics, audio and web page links for students to review. The teacher creates
a session in which students join and participate from their laptop, computer or
notepad. These sessions and notebooks are stored on the DyKnow server for
retrieval by students for review at any time.
When
comparing DyKnow Vision to other software packages, Katie Hahn, Marketing
Communications Coordinator for DyKnow, said the following, “As far as the
collaborative-live functionality in DyKnow Vision goes, the closest
“competitors” are Classroom Presenter and Ubiquitous Presenter. They have lot
of the same interactive features but are much less robust than our Vision
product. And, in relation to LMS and note-taking software like OneNote, we find
that most of our schools use a combination of all three since each of these products
offer distinct differences.” (Hahn, 2011).
DyKnow and Students with Disabilities
DyKnow
Vision is used with students with visual impairments at Appalachian State
University in Boone, NC and King’s College in Wilkes-Barre, PA. To assist
students’ impaired sight, professors use many tools to enlarge or speak the
text of a lesson. DyKnow Vision can be effective for the student to enlarge the
PowerPoint and lecture notes on his or her screen. Also, visually impaired
students may have sensitivities to certain colors. This can be corrected using
DyKnow’s software on a student’s personal tablet by adjusting backgrounds and
fonts as necessary for visually impaired students (i.e. white letters on black
background).
Despite all
the benefits of the software in the active learning classroom for visually
impaired students, there are some issues that need to be improved in order for
the program to be fully accessible to this population of students. ZoomText, a
magnifier used to enlarge what is on the computer screen, is not compatible
with DyKnow Vision. The compatibility of this product with DyKnow Vision for
students with only some vision loss is imperative. Also, DyKnow Vision and
JAWS, a program that reads words on the screen aloud, are not compatible. For a
student with full vision loss, it may be impossible to use DyKnow Vision
without JAWS. We have found it helpful to have an assistant or other student
work with the screen. The audio recordings are also helpful in this case.
DyKnow, Music, and Computers
DyKnow Vision
is specifically used at Appalachian State University by Dr. Jennifer Snodgrass
in the upper level Music Theory classroom to aid in teaching aural skills.
Instructors can provide blank graphic paper for students, provide an aural
excerpt, and students can dictate instantaneously using DyKnow Vision.
Snodgrass, of Appalachian State University, says this feature is “very
effective…in the theory classroom, I am able to see that the student has
ownership of the material” (Snodgrass, 2011).
At King’s
College DyKnow Vision is being used successfully in several computer and
information systems classes. Students enjoyed having the ability to use the
computer as a notebook and to share screens with scripts and lesson content. It
has been somewhat difficult for the visually impaired student to use DyKnow
Vision without the help of a guide.
Future Research
A closer
look at using DyKnow Vision and active learning strategies in a classroom with
a visually impaired student needs to be considered for both traditional and
blended learning environments.
Conclusion
The
hallmark of technology is to make the world easier to navigate and to learn. It
is incumbent upon designers of technology for learning environments to begin by
thinking about those learners who need to be able to participate in active and
social learning experiences despite physical limitations. DyKnow is one tool
that teachers can use to engage students with activity and give them ample
opportunity to interact with the lessons outside of class time. Providing
classroom tools that encourage and stimulate active learning is a requirement
for successful learning environments.
References
Johnstone, C., Thurlow, M., Thompson, S., &
Clapper, A. T. (2008). The potential for multi-modal approaches to reading for
students with disabilities as found in state reading standards. Journal of
Disability Policy Studies , 18 (4), 219-229.
Jordan, A. P. (2004, August). Blended Learning
and Sense of Community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully
online graduate courses. Retrieved February 2, 2010, from The International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning:
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/192/274
Klenner-Moore, J. (2011, in press). Creating a Context for Activity in Blended Learning Environments: Engaging
the Twitchy Fingers. Proceedings from CHI 2011.
Prensky, M. (2008, May 22). The
21st-Century Digital Learner. Edutopia.
http://www.edutopia.org/ikids accessed on 2/2/11.
Snodgrass, J. S. (2011). Making
beautiful music. DyKnow - Video Library . Dynamic Knowledge Transfer.
Anna Johnson
Appalachian
University, USA
johnsonae@email.appstate.edu
Jayne Klenner-Moore
King’s College, USA
jaynemoore@kings.edu
Regular Articles Section
A recent
course management system (CMS) evaluation committee at the University of
Florida surveyed students to gather their perceptions of CMS tools and
functions. The results of this survey are presented here to suggest some trends
and issues institutions might consider when reviewing CMS options or other
teaching and learning tools.
All UF
students (N=52,000+) were invited to participate in the ten question survey,
with 1,544 (2.97%) responding. Class ranks distributed fairly evenly though
with a low response rate from professional students [Figure 1].
Figure 1 – Class ranks of student respondents
Distribution
of respondents by college [Figure 2] is self-explanatory. Dentistry, Law, and
Veterinary Medicine probably had fewer responses because they do not currently
use a CMS.
Figure 2 – College affiliation of respondent students
Respondents
were 74% on-campus and 26% distance education. This distribution is not
reflective of the actual population of the University, with distance education
students being over-represented.
86% of
respondents reported using a CMS and 14% reported no use. However, later
open-ended responses suggest that many “non-users” had, in fact, used a CMS.
Because the survey did not define or give examples of CMSs, uncertainty may
have created confusion.
1140
respondents (92%) identified the system as very useful, useful, or somewhat
useful [Figure 3]; further evidence for the importance of CMSs.
Figure 3 – How useful do you think the e-learning
system is for your experience as a student?
Students
were next asked to use a response matrix to indicate the most valuable CMS
tools. Responses indicated that viewing grades, announcements, syllabus,
assignments, assessments, discussions, and mail were the top choices [Figure
4]).
Figure 4 – Student valuation of features in the
current UF CMS
To ask
about new CMS features, students received a short list of tools under
consideration for campus-wide adoption. As seen in Figure 5, file sharing and
social bookmarking were most desired while portfolios and wikis scored low.
Figure 5 - Student responses regarding new tools in
the future UF CMS
A final,
open-ended question sought input about improving the CMS. Students most frequently
cited the need for a better user interface. Some students also noted that
instructors complain about systems being difficult to use and indicated that
learning might be enhanced if the system was more “instructor-friendly,”
decreasing time required for assessment results and improving performance
feedback. Students also desired better features in the email and in the
calendar. Finally, a small number of students noted that future systems needed
to be more compatible with Apple devices.
Response Analysis
Analyzing
responses to the open ended questions provided additional insight. For example,
while the “objective” questions did not ask about student perceptions of
instructor CMS use, written responses indicated mixed student perceptions.
Likewise, student responses document instructor perceptions that administration
rarely values use of the CMS. Both insights have important implications for
institutional support units and campus administration.
Running
word analysis of the text responses elicited interesting themes. For
example, when asked about improvements to the CMS, students familiar with CMSs
wrote most frequently of “teachers,” “tools,” and “grades” [Figure 6].
Figure 6 - Commonly used terms in text responses of
students claiming familiarity with course management systems
That
“teachers” appears most frequently suggests that students are aware of teacher
attitudes toward, and competence with the CMS. Comments also suggest that
students want teachers to use the CMS; but they also want them to use it
effectively.
Students who indicated no familiarity with
CMSs were asked for recommendations, and used “system,” “courses,” and
“computer” as their most common terms [Figure 7].
Figure 7 - Commonly used terms in text responses of
students claiming lack of familiarity with course management systems
It is
interesting that students lacking familiarity with CMSs expressed concerns
about the “system” – perhaps indicating anxiety about learning a new system.
Likewise, it is notable that concerns about teachers drop while broader
concerns about “courses,” “computer,” and “class” become top concerns.
Additional
analysis indicated that responses generalized into three categories: 1) tools
that empower self-monitoring, 2) enhance course-specific communication, and 3)
provide information about the course [Figure 8]. That
students seem to value most tools that empower self-monitoring has
important implications for instructors given the broad impression that
self-quizzes, practice tests, etc. are among the most under-utilized
capabilities of CMSs.
Figure 8 – Most valuable CMS tools as indicated by
students
Conclusions
While we
have not done a systematic evaluation of tool use in the University CMS, it is
our impression that most courses limit themselves to presenting the syllabus,
course files, and readings, and perhaps reporting grades to students. This
study suggests that students want instructors to make more extensive and
consistent use of available CMS tools for student progress monitoring (grades,
progress indicators, self-assessments), for the "instant feedback" of
online quizzing and testing, and for communication (mail, discussions).
At the same
time however, the rapid growth in both hybrid and distance education raises
many considerations that were not examined. For example, would on-campus and
distance education students identify different preferences and priorities for
tools? Future survey efforts might consider how to isolate these populations
and compare how they rank tools and functions.
References
Fritz, J. and Readel, K (2011). “A Case for
Leveraging the Online Grade Book.” Presentation at the
ELI 2011 Annual Meeting.
Smith, S., G.
Salaway, and J. Caruso (2009). “The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and
Information Technology.” ECAR. Retrieved 12/24/2009
from http://www.educause.edu/Resources/TheECARStudyofUndergraduateStu/187215
Douglas Johnson
University of Florida, USA
wanderer@ufl.edu
Tawnya Means
University of Florida, USA
tawnya.means@warrington.ufl.edu
Randy Graff
University of Florida, USA
rgraff@ufl.edu
Introduction
It is
widely accepted that solving programming exercises is fundamental to learn how
to program. Nevertheless, solving exercises is only effective if students
receive an assessment on their work. An exercise solved wrong will consolidate
a false belief, and without feedback many students will not be able to overcome
their difficulties. However, creating, managing and accessing a large number of
exercises, covering all the points in the curricula of a programming course, in
classes with large number of students, can be a daunting task without the
appropriated tools working in unison. This involves a diversity of tools, from
the environments where programs are coded, to automatic program evaluators
providing feedback on the attempts of students, passing through the authoring,
management and sequencing of programming exercises as learning objects. We
believe that the integration of these tools will have a great impact in
acquiring programming skills.
Our
research objective is to manage and coordinate a network of eLearning systems
where students can solve computer programming exercises. Networks of this kind
include systems such as learning management systems (LMS), evaluation engines
(EE), learning objects repositories (LOR) and exercise resolution environments
(ERE).
Our
strategy to achieve the interoperability among these tools is based on a shared
definition of programming exercise as a Learning Object (LO).
Programming Exercises as Learning Objects
The concept
of Learning Object (LO) is crucial for the standardization on eLearning [1]. The latest standard for LOs is the IMS Common Cartridge (IMS CC) [2]. An IMS CC learning 2object
assembles resources and metadata described by a manifest. We developed an XML dialect called PExIL, standing for Programming
Exercises Interoperability Language. The aim of PExIL is to consolidate in
a single document all the data required in the programming exercise life-cycle,
from when it is created to when it is graded, covering also the
resolution, the evaluation and the feedback. PExIL
documents can be used for authoring LOs containing programming exercises.
The
generation of an LO is based on a valid PExIL instance as depicted in Figure 1.
The Generator tool uses as input a solution file and produces automatically
several resources (e.g. exercise description, test cases and feedback files)
described by a valid IMS CC manifest and wrapped up inside a ZIP file.
Nevertheless,
the impact of PExIL is not confined to authoring since these documents are
included in the LO itself and they contain data that can be used in its
life-cycle, to present the exercise description in different formats, to
regenerate test cases or even to produce feedback to the student.
Figure 1 – Structure of a programming exercise as a LO
Environment for learning programming languages
The
previous LO definition will be used in a learning process regarding the
automatic evaluation of programming exercises. The evaluation of programming
exercises involves the following types of services:
- Learning Management System - to manage and
retrieve the exercises to the learners. We chose the Moodle LMS since it
is a free and open-source LMS with a significant share on the LMS market
[3];
- Learning Objects Repository - to persist
LOs and related meta-information. We developed a specialized repository
named crimsonHex [4] which currently stores more than 2000 programming
exercises;
- Evaluation engine - to evaluate and produce
feedback on the learners’ attempts to solve the exercise. We will use the
Mooshak system as the evaluation engine based on a shared service [5];
- Exercises Resolution Environment – to code
the attempts of solving an exercise. We will use the Eclipse IDE since it
is a free, widely used and open-source solution.
Figure 2
shows the integration of these services in a pedagogical learning process. In
this particular scenario the teacher starts by setting a number of activities
in the LMS, including the resolution of programming exercises. To select the
relevant programming exercises the teacher 1) searches for relevant exercises
in the repository. Then, the learner 2) tries to solve the exercises set be the
teacher using an Experimentation Environment (e.g. Eclipse IDE). The IDE 3)
recovers exercises descriptions from the repository showing them to the
student. After coding the program the learner 4) send an attempt to the
Evaluation Engine. The Evaluation Engine 5) recovers test cases from the
repository. The learner may submit repeatedly, integrating the feedback
received from the Evaluation Engine. In the end, the Evaluation Engine 6) sends
a grade to the LMS that records it and reports the LO usage data back to the
repository.
Figure 2 – Service integration in a pedagogical
learning process [4]
Future Work
We are
currently finishing the development of the generator engine to produce a LO
compliant with the IMS CC specification. The generator uses the PExIL
definition to produce a set of resources related with a programming exercise
such as exercise descriptions in multiple languages, input and output test
files, feedback and a manifest file used to describe the programming exercise
as a whole. This tool could be used as an IDE plug-in or through command line
based on a valid PExIL instance.
[1]
Friesen,
N.: Interoperability and Learning Objects: An Overview of E-Learning
Standardization". Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning
Objects. 2005.
[2]
IMS
CC Specification Version 1.0 http://www.imsglobal.org/cc/index.html
[3]
Davis,
B., Carmean, C. and Wagner, E.D. (2009). The Evolution of the LMS: From
Management to Learning - Deep Analysis of Trends Shaping the Future of
eLearning, Sage Road Solutions, LLC.
[4]
Queirós,
R. and Leal, J.P.: CrimsonHex: a Service Oriented Repository of Specialized
Learning Objects. 11th International Conference on Enterprise Information
Systems, Milan, Italy, May 2009.
[5]
Queirós,
R. and Leal, J.P.: Specifying a service for programming exercises evaluation in
the E-Framework. The 9th International Conference on Web-based Learning,
Shanghai, China, December, 2010.
[6]
Leal,
J.P. and Queirós, R.: Modelling text file evaluation processes, in
"2010 International Workshop on Cognitive-based Interactive Computing and
Web Wisdom (CICW'10)", Springer-Verlag, December 2010.
Ricardo Queirós
CRACS &
DI-ESEIG/IPP, Portugal
ricardo.queiros@eu.ipp.pt
José Paulo Leal
University of
Porto, Portugal
zp@dcc.fc.up.pt
Introduction
As the
field of distance education advances, the boundaries between which types of
curricular content can and cannot be taught online is blurring. Advancements in
educational technology and internet access are allowing en mass delivery of
digital instruction to take place. In this article the authors describe the
process and challenges experienced while approaching and surpassing what once
stood as a technological and pedagogical barrier in distance education course
offerings. The innovations in course conception and learning dynamics that made
it possible to successfully design and offer an online multimedia production
course are discussed.
Background
When first
faced with the challenge of developing an online media production course in
order to meet a need in department curriculum, the course type and primary
production methods were identified by various research sources. According to
Start, Piwinsky and Lamberski (2010) photography has been identified as the
production course which is seen as most favorable by university students to be
offered online in the future. In addition, Sadik (2008) discusses a multimedia
production process involving still photographs and audio to create digital
stories. The development of this course follows the need identified by Start,
et al. (2010) and a production format which is similar to that identified and
implemented by Sadik (2008). Thus, a multimedia format for the delivery of a
documentary photography course was chosen. The constructivist approach of
learning being viewed as a process of instructor facilitation rather than
direct knowledge conduction (Savery & Duffy, 1996) was chosen as the
primary theoretical framework for the course.
Course Design
The course
was primarily designed to provide the student with information, instruction and
an obstacle/project within each major section. Students would create digital
stories by means of taking their own documentary photographs along with music,
captions, video effects, transitional effects and creative license and create
three to five minute video clips in the given software package. Theoretical,
historical and practical information along with guidelines, tutorials and
examples were presented to the students through the learning management system
(LMS). Within this stepped process, the learners were then presented with an
obstacle/project that took the form of a documentary photography assignment
where they would have to apply the unit specific instruction and tools in order
to complete the tasks at hand. These pedagogical methods may be somewhat usual;
however the greater challenge and need for innovation came with meshing the
basic instructional principles with the technological needs inherent in the
curriculum. The primary LMS used was Moodle. However, the University Project
Directory information management system (IMS) was required to manage and upload
the large video files in excess of 50-100+ MB. Students would then work back
and forth between the LMS and IMS to fulfill various course functions. The LMS
was utilized for dissemination of content and instructor feedback while the IMS
was used for students to turn in their assignments to the instructor for
evaluation.
Implementation
On paper,
the instructional and technological strategy was sound and approved; however
when it was piloted during the first offering of the online course, various
unexpected needs and issues arose. Levels of familiarity with the IMS and LMS
were overestimated by course designers and remedial instruction along with an
unforeseen high volume of clarifications had to be delivered to some of the
students in order to approach content mastery. However, after the initial
confusion, the course began to run as intended and the majority of students
were able to master the technological aspects of the course and focus on
documentary photography content. This fact is noteworthy. However, the required
synergy between IMS and LMS was never realized by some of the students who
struggled with the basic technology involved with online learning for the
duration of the semester. It then came to the authors’ attention that for some
students the course unintentionally became a vehicle to teach the technology. This
became more of the focus for the course, almost forcing the primary documentary
photography content aspects to become secondary. In such cases, bridging the
gap between the technology as a delivery system and the actual course content
became the central concern for the instructors involved.
Discussion and Conclusion
The
question remains: Can teaching media production courses through a distance
education model be effective? Information gained from the implementation of
this pilot online offering can only suggest a direction for this type of
pedagogy. Student results from this experiment would indicate that online
delivery of production courses is not only plausible, but often desirable from
the vantage point of some students. The technology of delivery has been shown
to work if the students commit to the process. If they do not, then the
students tend to meet insurmountable obstacles to their success, not only
facing difficulty mastering the aesthetic and theory-bound content but also the
technological skills needed to actually perform the required tasks online. Initially
entering into this arena may not be for the fainthearted, but the rewards of
such an experience may help enhance and refine the quality of educational
curricula in the 21st century.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Ms. Jennifer
Tissue for assistance with proofreading and formatting.
References
Sadik, A. (2008). Digital storytelling: a
meaningful technology-integrated approach for engaged student learning. Educational technology
research and development, 56(4), 487-506.
Savery, J., & Duffy, T. (1996). Problem based learning: An
instructional model and its constructivist framework. Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional
design, 135-148.
Start, J.,
Piwinsky, M. & Lamberski, R. (2010). An Assessment of the
ownership, usage, and, Access of Communication Technology, Software and
Hardware by Undergraduate Students in the Communications Media Department at
the Indiana University of Pennsylvania. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge
(Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology
& Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 896-904). Chesapeake, VA:
AACE.
George Konetes
Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA
G.D.Konetes@iup.edu
Mary Beth Leidman
Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA
mbleid@iup.edu
