Analysis and Categorization of e-Learning Activities Based On Meaningful Learning Characteristics

Learning is the acquisition of new mental schemata, knowledge, abilities and skills which can be used to solve problems potentially more successfully. The learning process is optimum when it is assisted and personalized. Learning is not a single activity, but should involve many possible activities to make learning become meaningful. Many e-learning applications provide facilities to support teaching and learning activities. One way to identify whether the e-learning system is being used by the learners is through the number of hits that can be obtained from the e-learning system's log data. However, we cannot rely solely to the number of hits in order to determine whether learning had occurred meaningfully. This is due to the fact that meaningful learning should engage five characteristics namely active, constructive, intentional, authentic and cooperative. This paper aims to analyze the e-learning activities that is meaningful to learning. By focusing on the meaningful learning characteristics, we match it to the corresponding Moodle e-learning activities. This analysis discovers the activities that have high impact to meaningful learning, as well as activities that are less meaningful. The high impact activities is given high weights since it become important to meaningful learning, while the low impact has less weight and said to be supportive e-learning activities. The result of this analysis helps us categorize which e-learning activities that are meaningful to learning and guide us to measure the effectiveness of e-learning usage.

[1]  James G. Greeno,et al.  Learning in Activity , 2014 .

[2]  James R. Layton,et al.  Integrating Technology for Meaningful Learning , 1999, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[3]  M. van Ast,et al.  MEANINGFUL LEARNING WITH TECHNOLOGY , 2014 .

[4]  Päivi Karppinen,et al.  Meaningful Learning with Digital and Online Videos: Theoretical Perspectives , 2005 .

[5]  C. Bonwell,et al.  Active learning : creating excitement in the classroom , 1991 .

[6]  Charalambos Vrasidas,et al.  Factors influencing interaction in an online course , 1999 .

[7]  Diane J. Hanson,et al.  E-Learning: Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the Digital Age , 2003, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[8]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  Beliefs, Reasoning and Decision-making: Psycho-logic in Honor of Bob Abelson , 1994 .

[9]  S. Jimerson,et al.  Toward an Understanding of Definitions and Measures of School Engagement and Related Terms , 2003 .

[10]  Marc J. Rosenberg,et al.  E-Learning: Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the Digital Age , 2000 .

[11]  D. Ausubel The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. , 1963 .

[12]  Cem Babadoğan,et al.  Examples of instructional design for social studies according to meaningful learning and information processing theories , 2011 .

[13]  A. Rendas,et al.  Toward meaningful learning in undergraduate medical education using concept maps in a PBL pathophysiology course. , 2006, Advances in physiology education.

[14]  Gwo-Dong Chen,et al.  An activity-theoretical approach to investigate learners' factors toward e-learning systems , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[15]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Learning to Solve Problems with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective , 2002 .

[16]  Roberto A. Weber,et al.  Meaningful Learning and Transfer of Learning in Games Played Repeatedly Without Feedback , 2009, Games Econ. Behav..

[17]  Lázaro Rodríguez Ariza,et al.  Blended learning in higher education: Students' perceptions and their relation to outcomes , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[18]  S. Christenson,et al.  Handbook of Research on Student Engagement , 2012 .

[19]  Gilly Salmon,et al.  Flying not flapping : a strategic framework for e-learning and pedagogical innovation in higher education institutions , 2005 .

[20]  Jan Herrington,et al.  An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments , 2000 .

[21]  Rebecca Ferguson,et al.  Virtual Worlds: Controversies at the Frontier of Education , 2010 .

[22]  Donyaprueth Krairit,et al.  The study of e-learning technology implementation: A preliminary investigation of universities in Thailand , 2006, Education and Information Technologies.

[23]  Jennifer A. Fredricks,et al.  School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence , 2004 .

[24]  J. Novak Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge , 2009 .

[25]  Daniel P. Stewart,et al.  Technology as a Management Tool in the Community College Classroom: Challenges and Benefits , 2008 .

[26]  Ellen A. Skinner,et al.  Engagement and disaffection as organizational constructs in the dynamics of motivational development. , 2009 .