Learners’ Perceptions on the Structure and Usefulness of e-Resources for the Thesis Courses

Aghaee, Naghmeh; Hansson, Henrik; Tedre, Matti; Drougge, Ulrika

doi:10.2478/eurodl-2014-0011

Abstract

The use of information and communication technology (ICT) in education is a way to facilitate interaction and accessing information for learning in higher education. However, finding a set of structured e-resources to facilitate learning within specific courses is still a big challenge in most higher education institutions. This includes the problems and challenges for thesis courses in both undergraduate (Bachelor) and graduate (Master) level in Sweden. To overcome or reduce the problems and enhance quality of outcomes in thesis courses, the department of Computer and Systems Sciences (DSV) at Stockholm University has developed a Learning Support System, SciPro (Scientific Process), to support the thesis process. The aim of this study is to investigate learners’ perspectives on the usefulness of structured e-resources in SciPro, to reduce challenges for finding information related to the thesis process. This was done based on an open online survey, carried out in 2012-2013 of students’ perspectives at DSV. The study found the actual problems that students have encountered in the thesis courses and hence suggested a general model as a way forward to sort the e-resources to reduce the problems in the thesis process.

References

1. Aghaee, N. (2013) Finding potential problems in the thesis process in higher education: Analysis of e-mails to develop a support system. In Education and Information Technologies, online. DOI:10.1007/s10639-013-9262-z, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-013-9262-z
Search in Google Scholar
2. Aghaee, N. and Hansson, H. (2013). Peer Portal: Quality enhancement in thesis writing using self-managed peer review on a mass scale. In The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(1), (pp. 186-203).10.19173/irrodl.v14i1.1394
Search in Google Scholar
3. Aghaee, N. and Larsson, K. (2013). Students’ Perspectives on Utility of Mobile Applications in Higher Education. In Trends in Mobile Web Information Systems, (pp. 44-56). Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-319-03737-0_6
Search in Google Scholar
4. Aghaee, N.; Larsson, U. and Hansson, H. (2012). Improving the Thesis Process: Analysis of Scipro Support e-mails. IRIS conference 2013. Retrieved February 01, 2013 from http://iris.im.uu.se/wp-uploads/2012/08/iris2012_submission_66.pdf
Search in Google Scholar
5. Alexander, S. (2001) E-learning developments and experiences. In Education + Training, 43(4/5), (pp. 240-248).10.1108/00400910110399247
Search in Google Scholar
6. Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning Teaching and Assessment to Curriculum Objectives. Imaginative Curriculum Project, LTSN Generic Centre
Search in Google Scholar
7. Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. (2nd ed.), Glasgow: McGraw-Hill International.
Search in Google Scholar
8. Bossewitch, J. and Preston, D.M. (2011). Teaching and Learning with Video Annotations. Mobility Shifts: an International Future of Learning Summit. Retrieved March 14, 2013, from http://learningthroughdigitalmedia.net/teaching-and-learning-with-video-annotations
Search in Google Scholar
9. Christie, M.F. and Ferdos, F. (2004). The mutual impact of educational and information technologies: Building a pedagogy of e-learning. In Journal of Information Technology Impact, 4(1), (pp. 15-26).
Search in Google Scholar
10. Choi, H.J. and Johnson S.D. (2005). The effect of context-based video instruction on learning and motivation in online courses. In American Journal of Distance Education, 19 (4), (pp. 215-227).10.1207/s15389286ajde1904_3
Search in Google Scholar
11. Clarke, A. (2008). E-learning Skills. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-1-137-22735-5
Search in Google Scholar
12. Cohen, L.; Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. (6th ed). New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203029053
Search in Google Scholar
13. Concannon, F.; Flynn, A. and Campbell, M. (2005). What campus-based students think about the quality and benefits of e-learning. In British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), (pp. 501-512).10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00482.x
Search in Google Scholar
14. Cook, C.; Heath, F. and Thompson, R.L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. In Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), (pp. 821-836).10.1177/00131640021970934
Search in Google Scholar
15. Creswell, J.W. (2007). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Prentice Hall; 3 edition
Search in Google Scholar
16. Denscombe, M. (2010). The Good Research Guide for small-scale social research projects. Third Edition, McGraw-Hill International
Search in Google Scholar
17. Dron, J. (2007). Designing the undesignable: social software and control. In Educational Technology & Society, 10(3), (pp. 60-71).
Search in Google Scholar
18. Ehlers, U.-D. (2004). Quality in e-learning from a learner’s perspective. In European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved March 20, 2014, from http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?article=101
Search in Google Scholar
19. Garrison, D.R. (2003). Self-Directed Learning and Distance Education. In M.G. Moore & W.G. Anderson (eds.) (1986), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed.), (pp. 161-168).
Search in Google Scholar
20. Hammond, M. (2004). The peculiarities of teaching information and communication technology as a subject: A study of trainee and new ICT teachers in secondary schools. In Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(1), (pp. 29-42).10.1080/14759390400200171
Search in Google Scholar
21. Hansson, H. and Moberg, J. (2011). Quality processes in technology enhanced thesis work. Bali, Indonesia: 24th ICDE World Conference on Open and Distance Learning.
Search in Google Scholar
22. Hashim, N. and Hashim, H. (2010). Outcome based education performance evaluation on the final year degree project. In the Proceedings of the 7th WSEAS international conference on engineering education.
Search in Google Scholar
23. Jones, M. (2013). Issues in Doctoral Studies-Forty Years of Journal Discussion: Where have we been and where are we going? In International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 8.10.28945/1859
Search in Google Scholar
24. Kahiigi, E.K.; Ekenberg, L.; Hansson, H.; Tusubira, F.F. and Danielson, M. (2008). Exploring the e-Learning State of Art. In The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 6(2), (pp. 77-88).
Search in Google Scholar
25. Kain, D.J. (2003). Teacher-Centered versus Student-Centered: Balancing Constraint and Theory in the Composition Classroom. In Pedagogy, 3(1), (pp. 104-108).10.1215/15314200-3-1-104
Search in Google Scholar
26. Kuo, Y.; Walker, A.E.; Belland, B.R. and Schroder, K.E.E. (2013). Predictive Study of Student Satisfaction in Online Education Programs. In The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(1), (pp. 16-39).10.19173/irrodl.v14i1.1338
Search in Google Scholar
27. Lemon, J.S. (2007). The effect of reminder intervals on response rates for web surveys. In Association for Survey Computing (p. 103).
Search in Google Scholar
28. Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interactions. In The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), (pp. 1-6).10.1080/08923648909526659
Search in Google Scholar
29. Muilenburg, L.Y. and Berge, Z.L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. In Distance Education, 26(1), (pp. 29-48).10.1080/01587910500081269
Search in Google Scholar
30. Penny, K.I. (2011). Factors that Influence Student E-learning Participation in a UK Higher Education Institution. In Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning, 7. Retrieved December 10, 2012, from http://ijello.org/Volume7/IJELLOv7p081-095Penny754.pdf10.28945/1377
Search in Google Scholar
31. Peterson, J. (1993). Learning through teaching. In L. Odell (ed.), Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Writing: Rethinking the Discipline, (pp. 9-40). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Search in Google Scholar
32. Reinhart, J. and Schneider, P. (2001). Student satisfaction, self-efficacy, and the perception of the two-way audio/video distance learning environment: A preliminary examination. In Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(4), (pp. 357-365).
Search in Google Scholar
33. Richards, C. (2005). The Design of Effective ICT-Supported Learning. Activities: Exemplary Models, Changing Requirements, and New Possibilities. In Language Learning & Technology, 9(1), (pp. 60-79).
Search in Google Scholar
34. Richards, C. (2006). Towards an integrated framework for designing effective ICT-supported learning environments: the challenge to better link technology and pedagogy. In Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15 (2), (pp. 239-255). 10.1080/14759390600769771
Search in Google Scholar
35. UHR (2013). The Swedish Higher Education Act, Föreskrifter och allmänna råd om bilaga till examensbevis (hsvfs 2002:5). Universitets Och Högskolerådet. Retrieved February 13, 2014, from, http://www.uhr.se/sv/Studier-och-antagning/Antagning-till-hogskolan/Examina-pauniversitet-och-hogskola/Bilaga-till-examensbevis/hsvfs/
Search in Google Scholar

Learners’ Perceptions on the Structure and Usefulness of e-Resources for the Thesis Courses

Abstract

Paradigm

My account