You are here:

Evaluating the Use of Web-Based Learning Tools in Middle Classrooms
PROCEEDINGS

, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Toronto, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-81-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

This study evaluated the use WBLTs in middle school mathematics and science classrooms. Survey, qualitative, and student performance data were collected from a sample of 18 teachers and 443 students. Teachers were very positive about the learning, design, and engagement features of WBLTs. On the other hand, students were moderately positive about these same features. Student performance with respect to remembering, understanding, applying and evaluating concepts increased significantly when WBLTs were used. Qualitative data suggested that students liked the visual supports, ease of use, and interactivity of WBLTs as well using technology to learn. Some students noted that the WBLTs used in class were not challenging enough and that the help features and the design of certain WBLTs were deficient. Overall, it is reasonable to conclude that WBLTs, if selected carefully, can be a positive and effective learning tool in a middle school milieu.

Citation

Kay, R. (2010). Evaluating the Use of Web-Based Learning Tools in Middle Classrooms. In J. Herrington & C. Montgomerie (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2010--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 3630-3637). Toronto, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 11, 2024 from .

© 2010 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Agostinho, S., Bennett, S., Lockyear, L., & Harper, B. (2004). Developing a learning object metadata application profile based on LOM suitable for the Australian higher education market. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(2), 191-208.
  2. Akpinar, Y., & Hartley, J.R. (1996). Designing interactive learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 12(1), 33-46.
  3. Bower, M. (2005). Online assessment feedback: Competitive, individualistic, or…preferred form! Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(2), 121-147.
  4. Butson, R. (2003). Learning objects: weapons of mass instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 667-669.
  5. Gadanidis, G., Gadanidis, J. & Schindler, K. (2003). Factors mediating the use of online applets in the lesson planning of pre-service mathematics teachers. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22(4), 323-344.
  6. Kay. R.H., & Knaack, L. (2009). Assessing learning, quality and engagement in learning objects: The learning object evaluation scale for students (LOES-S). Education Technology Research and Development, 57(2), 147168.
  7. Kay. R.H., Knaack, L., & Muirhead, B. (2009). A formative analysis of instructional strategies for using learning objects. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 20(3), 295-315.
  8. Kay, R.H., Knaack, L., & Petrarca, D. (2009). Exploring teacher perceptions of web-based learning tools. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5, 27-50. Available at http://ijklo.org/Volume5/IJELLOv5p027-050Kay649.pdf Kong, S.C., & Kwok, L.F. (2005). A cognitive tool for teaching the addition/subtraction of common fractions: A model of affordances. Computers and Education, 45(2), 245-265.
  9. Liu, M. & Bera, S. (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in a hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53(1), 5-21.
  10. McGreal, R. (2004). Learning objects: A practical definition. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(9). Retrieved August 5, 2005 from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Sep_04/article02.htm.
  11. Nurmi, S., & Jaakkola, T. (2006). Effectiveness of learning objects in various instructional settings. Learning, Media, and Technology, 31(3), 233-247.
  12. Parrish, P.E. (2004). The trouble with learning objects. Educational Technology Research& Development, 52(1), 49-67.
  13. Reimer, K. & Moyer, P.S. (2005). Third-graders learning about fractions using virtual manipulatives: A classroom study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(1), 5-25.
  14. Sedig, K & Liang, H (2006). Interactivity of visual mathematical representations: Factors affecting learning and cognitive processes. Journal of Interactive Learning Research. 17(2), 179-212.
  15. Thalheimer, W., & Cook, S. (2002). How to calculate effect sizes from published research articles: A simplified methodology. Retrieved July 14, 2007 from http://work-learning.com/effect_sizes.htm.
  16. Wiley, D.A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D.A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of learning objects: Online Version. Retrieved July, 1, 2005, from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc.
  17. Wiley, D., Waters, S., Dawson, D., Lambert, B., Barclay, M., & Wade, D. (2004). Overcoming the limitations of learning objects. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(4), 507-521.

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

Suggest Corrections to References

Slides