You are here:

Design Considerations for Today’s Online Learners: A Study of Personalized, Relationship-Based Social Awareness Information
Article

, Duquesne University, United States

International Journal on E-Learning, ISSN 1537-2456 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

This article examined online learners' preferences in personalized, relationship-based social awareness information sharing in course management systems. Three hundred seventy-seven online learners' willingness to share social awareness information was measured through a national survey. Results indicated that today's online learners are open minded in sharing social awareness information and their trust of course management systems is high. They prefer sharing information with more authoritative figures such as teachers. Differences among age groups existed, but none of the generations were consistently more open in sharing social awareness information. Overall, a strong preference in personalized, relationship-based social awareness information sharing was found. Instructors of online courses and designers of course management systems need to consider these characteristics of today's online learners in their design. This would help online learners to acknowledge themselves as feeling, intentional, thinking, and social human beings. This will cause improved learner interaction and engagement and eventually a successful online learning experience.

Citation

Heo, M. (2009). Design Considerations for Today’s Online Learners: A Study of Personalized, Relationship-Based Social Awareness Information. International Journal on E-Learning, 8(3), 293-311. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 11, 2024 from .

© 2009 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Adams, D. (2006). Internet Use and Privacy Attitudes Survey. Available: http://www.mndaily.com/ Survey/Uploads/InternetUseandPrivacyAttitudesSurvey/Internet%20Use%20and%20Privacy %20Attitudes%20Survey%20Release%201.pdf (accessed May 30, 2007).
  2. Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2005). Growing by Degrees: Online Education in the United States, 2005. Needham: Sloan Consortium. Available: http://www.sloan-C.org/resources/growing_ By_degrees.pdf. (accessed on February 21, 2006).
  3. Al-Matrouk, H.S. (2004). Awareness in future online learning. E-Learning Digest. Available: http://www.etqm.net/elearning_digest/july2004/Article_4.htm (accessed on December 12,
  4. 2004).Ally, M. (2003). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T.D. Anderson& F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabasca: Athabasca University.
  5. Bailey, T., & Mailloux, M. (2003). Non-traditional college students employed full-time: A viable niche market. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Symposium for the Marketing of Higher Education, Chicago, IL. Available: http://www.uwsa.edu/budplan/market/papers/AMA.AIR.Adult_ Paper.pdf (accessed on June 1, 2004).
  6. Baldwin, T.T., Bedell, M.D., & Johnson, J.L. (1997). The social fabric of a team-based M.B.A. Program: network effects on student satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 1369–1397.
  7. Benbunan-Fich, R. (2002). Improving education and training with IT. Communications of the Design Considerations for Today’s Online Learners 309
  8. Bielaczyc, K. (2001). Designing social infrastructure: The challenge of building computer-supported learning communities. Proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Maastricht, The Netherlands (pp. 106–114).
  9. Bolloju, N., & Davison, R. (2003). Learning through asynchronous discussions: Experiences from using a discussion board in a large undergraduate class in Hong Kong. ELearn, 4. Available: http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage/sub_page.c fm?sec t ion=4 & L is t_ i tem=12 & Page=1
  10. Cai, J. (2005). A social interaction analysis methodology for improving e-collaboration over the internet. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 4(2), 85–99.
  11. Caruso, J.B. & Kvavik, R.B. (2005). ECAR key findings– Students and information technology, 2005: Convenience, connection, control, and learning. Boulder: Educause Center for Applied Research. Available: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0506/rs/ers0506w.pdf (accessed on February 21, 2006).
  12. Cho, H., Gay, G., Davidson, B., & Ingraffea, A. (2005). Social networks, communication styles, and learning performance in a CSCL community. Computers& Education, 29: 309–329.
  13. Cho, H., Stefanone, M., Gay, G. (2002). Social information sharing in a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL’02, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO. Available: http://hci.cornell.edu/pubs/SocialInformationSharingInCSCL_Cho.pdf (accessed on October 26, 2007).
  14. Churchill, E., Girgensohn, A., Nelson, L., & Lee, A. (2004). Blending digital and physical spaces for ubiquitous community participation. Communications of the ACM, 47(2), 39–44.
  15. Danis, C.M. (2000). Extending the concept of awareness to include static and dynamic person information. ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin, 21(3), 59–62.
  16. Davis, S., & Gutwin, C. (2005). Using relationship to control disclosure in awareness servers. Proceedings of the Graphics Interface, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada (pp. 75–84).
  17. Duffy, T.M., & Cunningham, D.J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. New Work: McMillan Library Reference.
  18. Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2006). Spatially bounded online social networks and social capital: The role of Facebook. Proceedings of the 56th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany. Available: http://www.msu.edu/~ Nellison/Facebook_ICA_2006.pdf (accessed on June 1, 2007). Epstein, D.
  19. Frust, S.A., Reeves, M., Rosen, B., & Blackburn, R.S. (2004). Managing the lifecycle of virtual teams. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 6–20.
  20. Gokhale, A.A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Tecynology Education, 7(1), 22–30.
  21. Haake, J.M. (2003). Supporting collaborative exercises for distance education. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii, (pp. 310
  22. HeoHartman, J., Moskal, P., & Dziuban, C. (2005). Preparing the academy of today for the learner of tomorrow. Available: http://www.educause.edu/Prepar IngtheAcademyofTodayforthe
  23. Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Building social networks via computer networks: Creating and sustaining distributed learning communities. In K.A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace (pp. 159–190). Cambridge: Cambridge
  24. Hebert, A., & Chen, A. (2005). A new collaborative software package: Teamspace at Stanford University. Proceedings of the SIGUCCS’05, Monterey, CA (pp.109–112).
  25. Heo, M. (2005). Social information visualization in online learning. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, Phoenix, AZ, (pp. 2240–2245).
  26. Holder, B. (2007). An investigation of hope, academics, environment, and motivation as predictors of persistence in higher education online programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(4), 245–260.
  27. Hron, A., & Friedrich, H.F. (2003). A review of web-based collaborative learning: Factors beyond technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19: 70–79.
  28. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Jones, S. (2002). The Internet Goes to College. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/ Pdfs/PIP_College_Report.pdf (accessed on February 13, 2006).
  29. Jones, S., & Johnson-Yale, C. (2005). Professors online: The internet’s impact on college faculty. First Monday, 10(9). Available: http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_9/jones/ (accessed on February 21, 2006).
  30. Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education& Teaching International, 39, 153–162.
  31. Kvavik, R.B., & Caruso, J.B. (2005). ECAR study of students and information technology, 2005: Convenience, connection, control, and learning. Boulder: Educause Center for Applied Research. Available: http://www.educause.edu/L IbraryDeta i lPage/666? ID=ERS0506
  32. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Lee, A., Danis, C.M., Miller, T., & Jung, Y. (2001). Fostering social interaction in online spaces. Proceedings of the Human-Computer Interaction– INTERACT’01. Tokyo, Japan (pp. 59–66).
  34. Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Social networking websites and teens: An overview. Washington, DC: Pew Internet& American Life Project. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/ PPF/r/198/report_display.asp (accessed on January 13, 2007).
  35. Lorenzo, G., Oblinger, D., & Dziuban, C. (2007). How choice, co-creation, and culture are changing what it means to be net savvy. Educause Quarterly, 1: 6–12.
  36. McInturff, T.J. (2007). The Coming Digital Native Workforce. Available: http://www.loma.org/ Design Considerations for Today’s Online Learners
  37. Newberry, B. (2005). The use of bulletin boards for discussions in online learning. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(11), 37–46.
  38. Oblinger, D.G. (2004). The next generation of educational engagement. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2004 (8). Available: http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2004/8/oblinger2004-8-disc-paper.html
  39. Osterman, K.F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational Research, 70: 323–367.
  40. Redfern, S., & Naughton, N. (2002). Collaborative virtual environments to support communication and community in Internet-based distance education. Journal of Information Technology Education, 1(3), 201–211.
  41. Rovai, A.P. (2002). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 1–16.
  42. Ryan, A.M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38: 437–460.
  43. Slavin, R.E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43–69.
  44. Stahl, G. (2000). A model of collaborative knowledge-building. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI (pp. 70–77).
  45. Stahl, G. (2004). Building collaborative knowing: Elements of a social theory of CSCL. In J.W. Strijbos, PA. Kirschner, & R.L. Martens (Eds.), What We Know about CSCL, and Implementing it in Higher Education? (pp. 53–85). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  46. Turkle, S. (1984). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. New York: Simon& Schuster.
  47. Turkle, S. (2004). How computers change the way we think. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21), B.26.
  48. Wilson, M. (2007). Distance degrees. Kearney, NE: Morris Publishing Company.
  49. Zhang, D., Zhao, J.L., Zhou, L., & Nunamaker, J.J.F. (2004). Can e-learning replace classroom

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

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Also Read

Related Collections