The cone-of-learning: a visual comparison of learning systems

Purpose – Four learning modes, interacting through students as different learning systems, are mapped into a cone-of-learning continuum that allows tertiary institutions to visually re-consider where within their cone-of-learning, they choose to position their learning approaches. Two forms of blended learning are also distinguished. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – Undergraduate law, business, IT, and creative arts student perceptions are structural equation modelled (SEM) into traditional, blended-enabled, blended-enhanced, and flexible learning systems. Findings – Within the SEM derived learning cone-of-learning continuum, a migration from traditional learning systems towards blended and flexible learning systems typically offers higher-net levels of undergraduate student learning experiences and outcomes. Research limitations/implications – The authors do not capture learning system feedback loops, but the cone-of-learning approaches can position against chosen com...

[1]  Barbara L. Rau,et al.  A Study of Disciplinary, Structural, and Behavioral Effects on Course Outcomes in Online MBA Courses , 2007 .

[2]  Ömer Delialioglu,et al.  Students' Perceptions on Effective Dimensions of Interactive Learning in a Blended Learning Environment , 2007, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[3]  M. Cully Working in harmony: The links between the labour market and the education and training market in Australia , 2008 .

[4]  J. Arfield,et al.  Flexible learning in higher education , 1996 .

[5]  Shuk Ying Ho,et al.  Understanding the Impact of Web Personalization on User Information Processing and Decision Outcomes , 2006, MIS Q..

[6]  J. Hamilton,et al.  Linking car racing attendee expectations and values with trust, satisfaction and loyalty outcomes , 2013 .

[7]  B. J. Pine,et al.  Making mass customization work , 1993 .

[8]  Katerina Georgouli,et al.  A Framework for Adopting LMS to Introduce e-Learning in a Traditional Course , 2008, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[9]  J. Biggs,et al.  Teaching For Quality Learning At University , 1999 .

[10]  J. Arbaugh Virtual Classroom Characteristics and Student Satisfaction with Internet-Based MBA Courses , 2000 .

[11]  John Hamilton,et al.  Smart utilization of tertiary instructional modes , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[12]  James Braman,et al.  Extending the Classroom through Second Life , 2009, J. Inf. Syst. Educ..

[13]  John A. Hamilton,et al.  BUILDING THE TERTIARY INSTITUTION BUSINESS ENHANCEMENT MEASUREMENT MODEL , 2009 .

[14]  Dowming Yeh,et al.  What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[15]  Kate Beattie,et al.  Flexible coursework delivery to Australian postgraduates: How effective is the teaching and learning? , 1997 .

[16]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Learning Together and Alone , 1999 .

[17]  Catherine McLoughlin,et al.  A learner-centred approach to developing team skills through web-based learning and assessment , 2002, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[18]  J. Hair Multivariate data analysis : a global perspective , 2010 .

[19]  Verona McGrath,et al.  The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs Memorial , 2013 .

[20]  W. Shewhart The Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product. , 1932 .

[21]  Mário Raposo,et al.  Conceptual Model of Student Satisfaction in Higher Education , 2007 .

[22]  Eyal Gamliel,et al.  Online versus traditional teaching evaluation: mode can matter , 2005 .

[23]  J. McCarthy,et al.  Active Learning Techniques Versus Traditional Teaching Styles: Two Experiments from History and Political Science , 1999 .

[24]  Curtis J. Bonk,et al.  The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs , 2005 .

[25]  N. Entwistle,et al.  Approaches to Learning and Levels of , 1979 .

[26]  Celia Popovic,et al.  Teaching for quality learning at university. (2nd Edn.) , 2013 .

[27]  Charles R. Duke Learning Outcomes: Comparing Student Perceptions of Skill Level and Importance , 2002 .

[28]  Ryan Singh Paul,et al.  A Review of “Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporation” , 2012, Inf. Soc..

[29]  James C. Taylor Flexible Delivery: The Globalisation of Lifelong Learning , 1998 .

[30]  S. Barrie,et al.  A conceptual framework for the teaching and learning of generic graduate attributes , 2007 .

[31]  Kenneth A. Bollen,et al.  Representing general theoretical concepts in structural equation models: the role of composite variables , 2008, Environmental and Ecological Statistics.

[32]  K. Kiili Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model , 2005, Internet High. Educ..

[33]  Richard D. Warren,et al.  Model Building in Comparative Education: Applications of the LISREL Method to Cross-National Survey Data. , 1980 .

[34]  Richard E. Boyatzis,et al.  From learning styles to learning skills: the executive skills profile , 1995 .

[35]  John A. Hamilton,et al.  The importance of humans in simulation: allowing the lure of technology to drive development , 2011 .

[36]  F. Marton,et al.  Approaches to learning , 2003 .

[37]  Clyde W. Holsapple,et al.  Defining, Assessing, and Promoting E‐Learning Success: An Information Systems Perspective* , 2006 .

[38]  Paul W. Richardson The culture of education , 1996 .

[39]  Richard Malinski Teaching for flexible learning: Learning to apply the technology (MOLTA) , 2000, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[40]  Saroja Selvanathan,et al.  Learning Experience and Learning Effectiveness in Undergraduate Statistics: Modeling Performance in Traditional and Flexible Learning Environments , 2005 .

[41]  Michael Prosser,et al.  Improving the quality of student learning: the influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes , 1991 .

[42]  Boaz Shulruf,et al.  Student pathways at the university: patterns and predictors of completion , 2008 .

[43]  Ram B. Misra,et al.  An Evaluation of Factors Regarding Students’ Assessment of Faculty in a Business School* , 2008 .

[44]  Sriram Thirumalai,et al.  Customer satisfaction with order fulfillment in retail supply chains: implications of product type in electronic B2C transactions , 2005 .

[45]  Sumit Sarkar,et al.  The Role of the Management Sciences in Research on Personalization , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[46]  Tyrone W. Jackson,et al.  Personalisation and CRM , 2007 .

[47]  J. Arbaugh,et al.  A Structural Equation Model of Predictors for Effective Online Learning , 2005 .

[48]  Andrew J. Martin,et al.  Graduate Satisfaction with University and Perceived Employment Preparation , 2000 .

[49]  M. Allen,et al.  Comparing Student Satisfaction With Distance Education to Traditional Classrooms in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis , 2002 .

[50]  Mark Kretovics,et al.  Assessing the MBA: What do our students learn? , 1999 .

[51]  Janette R. Hill,et al.  Flexible Learning Environments: Leveraging the Affordances of Flexible Delivery and Flexible Learning , 2006 .

[52]  W. Deming The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education - 2nd Edition , 2000 .

[53]  Errol Yudko,et al.  Attitudes, beliefs, and attendance in a hybrid course , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[54]  Linda S. Brew The role of student feedback in evaluating and revising a blended learning course , 2008, Internet High. Educ..

[55]  Antony Stella,et al.  Benchmarking in Australian higher education: a thematic analysis of AUQA audit reports , 2007 .

[56]  John A. Hamilton,et al.  Learning in a demand chain management framework: directions for business education , 2002 .

[57]  D. Dill,et al.  Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems , 2005 .

[58]  Jacqueline Douglas,et al.  The development of a conceptual model of student satisfaction with their experience in higher education , 2008 .

[59]  John A. Hamilton,et al.  Blended teaching and learning: a two-way systems approach , 2013 .

[60]  Judith E. Miller,et al.  Are four heads better than one? A comparison of cooperative and traditional teaching formats in an introductory biology course , 1997 .

[61]  Ömer Delialioglu,et al.  Design and development of a technology enhanced hybrid instruction based on MOLTA model: Its effectiveness in comparison to traditional instruction , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[62]  Ebba Ossiannilsson Flexible Learning in a Digital World , 2002 .

[63]  Dan,et al.  Student Hits in an Internet-Supported Course: How Can Instructors Use Them and What Do They Mean?. , 2003 .

[64]  Estelle Michinov,et al.  Face-to-face contact at the midpoint of an online collaboration: Its impact on the patterns of participation, interaction, affect, and behavior over time , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[65]  S. Barrie Understanding What We Mean by the Generic Attributes of Graduates , 2006 .

[66]  A. Zauberman,et al.  The new economics , 1965 .

[67]  Robert H. Davis,et al.  Conceptualizing and Measuring the Optimal Experience of the eLearning Environment , 2007 .