Projektowanie efektywnego środowiska e-learningowego - perspektywa motywacyjna
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24917/20811861.22.30Słowa kluczowe:
e-learning, edukacja medialna, instructional design, cyfrowe materiały edukacyjneAbstrakt
Projektowanie cyfrowych materiałów edukacyjnych nie ogranicza się jedynie do zasad, związanych z ich funkcjonalnością lub estetyką. Wykorzystywane w różnych środowiskach, w tym do zdalnego uczenia się, pełnią rolę znacznie wykraczającą poza materiały pomocnicze, stając się niejednokrotnie samodzielnym środowiskiem edukacyjnym, jak w przypadku kursów typu MOOC lub e-learningowych kursów asynchronicznych. W procesie projektowania cyfrowych materiałów edukacyjnych niezbędne jest zarówno określenie środowiska, w którym będą wykorzystywane, jak też zakresu wiedzy i umiejętności, którego rozwój mają wspierać. Nie bez znaczenia jest także odpowiednie spojrzenie na przewidywany profil absolwenta kursu oraz wpływ jego podejścia do procesu uczenia się na końcowy wynik, a tym samym efektywność kursu. W artykule zostanie omówione zagadnienie motywacji uczestników kursów e-learningowych jako czynnika determinującego efektywność takich kursów. Będą także wskazane kluczowe elementy, jakie należy uwzględnić w procesie projektowania cyfrowych materiałów edukacyjnych, przeznaczonych do wykorzystania w kursach tego typu. Głównym celem osób projektujących cyfrowe materiały edukacyjne powinno być bowiem osiągnięcie jak najwyższej efektywności procesu uczenia się, jak też podniesienie poziomu satysfakcji osób uczestniczących w kursach, szkoleniach i zajęciach e-learningowych.
Bibliografia
Alkış N., Temizel T.T., The impact of motivation and personality on academic performance in online and blended learning environments, „Journal of Educational Technology & Society” 2018, vol. 21, no. 3, s. 35–47.
Ames C., Archer J., Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes, „Journal of Educational Psychology” 1988, vol. 80, no. 3, s. 260–267.
Andrade H.L., A critical review of research on student self-assessment, „Frontiers in Education” 2019, vol. 4.
Anohina A., Analysis of the terminology used in the field of virtual learning, „Journal of Educational Technology” 2005, vol. 8, no. 3, s. 91–102.
Aparicio M., An e-learning theoretical framework, „Journal of Educational Technology & Society” 2016, vol. 19, no. 1, s. 292–307.
Bell B.S., Federman J.E., E-learning in postsecondary education, „The Future of Children” 2013, vol. 23, no. 1, s. 165–185.
Black P., William D., Assessment and classroom learning, „Assessment in Education” 1998, vol. 5, no. 1, s. 7–74.
Bursztyn L., Egorov G., Jensen R., Cool to be smart or smart to be cool? Understanding peer pressure in education, „The Review of Economic Studies” 2019, vol. 86, iss. 4, s. 1487–1526.
Carr V.B., Asynchronous learning, [w:] Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning, red. N.M. Seel, Springer, Boston, MA 2012.
Cho S.Y., Im T., The structural relationships among online class related factors, zoom fatigue, learning engagement, perceived achievement, and class satisfaction in university online classes, „Education and Information Technologies” 2024.
Cooper K.S., Eliciting engagement in the high school classroom: A mixed-methods examination of teaching practices, „American Educational Research Journal” 2014, vol. 51, iss. 2, s. 363–402.
Curwin R., It’s a mistake not to use mistakes as part of the learning process, Edutopia, 28.10.2014, [on-line:] https://www.edutopia.org/blog/use-mistakes-in-learning-process-richard-curwin – 28.10.2023.
Daniels H.L., Moore D.M., Interaction of cognitive style and learner control in a hypermedia environment, „International Journal of Instructional Media” 2000, vol. 27, no. 4, s. 369–384.
Digamon J.S., Cinches F.C., Schlechty’s student engagement continuum in the work team experience: A pilot study, „Journal of Institutional Research South East Asia” 2017, vol. 15, no. 3, s. 5–18.
Dragomir I.-A., Niculescu B.-O., Shallow and deep processing – An integrated cognitive architecture for foreign language learning, „Land Forces Academy Review” 2022, vol. XXVII, no. 3(107), s. 216–220.
Edmondson A.C., Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens, [w:] Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches, red. R.M. Kramer, K.S. Cook, Russell Sage Foundation, 2004, s. 239–272.
Fabriz S., Mendzheritskaya J., Stehle S., Impact of synchronous and asynchronous settings of online teaching and learning in higher education on students’ learning experience during COVID-19, „Frontiers in Psychology” 2021, vol. 12.
Fairchild A.J., Horst S.J., Finney S.J., Barron K.E., Evalutating existing and new validity evidence for the academic motivation scale, „Contemporary Educational Psychology” 2005, vol. 30, iss. 3, s. 331–358.
Freeman S., Eddy S.L., McDonough M., Smith M.K., Okoroafor N., Jordt H., Wenderoth M.P., Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics, „Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences” 2014, vol. 111, no. 23, s. 8410–8415.
Hong J.-C., Liu X., Cao W., Tai K.-H., Zhao L., Effects of self-efficacy and online learning mind states on learning ineffectiveness during the COVID-19 lockdown, „Educational Technology & Society” 2022, vol. 25, no. 1, s. 142–154.
Hsieh T.-L., Motivation matters? The relationship among different types of learning motivation, engagement behaviors and learning outcomes of undergraduate students in Taiwan, „Higher Education” 2014, vol. 68, s. 417–433.
Knox L.E., Berzenski S.R., Drew S.A., Measuring Zoom fatigue in college students: Development and validation of the Meeting Fatigue Scale for Videoconferencing (MFS-V) and the Meeting Fatigue Scale for In-Person (MFS-I), „Media Psychology” 2023, vol. 26, iss. 6, s. 680–712.
Krain M., The Effects of different types of case learning on student engagement, „International Studies Perspectives” 2010, vol. 11, no. 3, s. 291–308.
Kurniawan M.B., Sutono S., Harjanto T., Zoom fatigue among undergraduate nursing students: A descriptive study, „Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia” 2024, vol. 13, no. 1.
Kyndt E., Dochy F., Struyen K., Cascallar E., The perception of workload and task complexity and its influence on students’ approaches to learning: a study in higher education, „European Journal of Psychology of Education” 2011, vol. 26, s. 393–415.
Laker B., Embrace mistakes to Build a learning culture, 2023, [on-line:] https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/embrace-mistakes-to-build-a-learning-culture – 28.10.2023.
Lens W., Simons J., Dewitte S., From duty to desire: The role of students’ future time perspective and instrumentality perceptions for study motivation and self-regulation, [w:] Academic motivation of adolescents, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich 2002, s. 221–246.
Martin A., Interpersonal relationships and students’ academic and non-academic development, [w:] Interpersonal relationships in education. Advances in learning environments research, red. D. Zandvliet, P. d. Brok, T. Mainhard, J. v. Tartwijk, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam 2014.
Martin A.J., Dowson M., Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, andachievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and practice, „Review of Educational Research” 2009, vol. 79, iss. 1, s. 327–365.
Mayer R., Multimedia learning, [w:] The psychology of learning and motivation, red. B. Ross, San Diego 2002, s. 85–139.
Mayer R., Cognitive theory of multimedia learning, [w:] The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, red. R. Mayer, Cambridge University Press, New York 2005, s. 31–48.
Mayer R., Heiser J., Lonn S., Cognitive constraints on multi- media learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding, „Journal of Educational Psychology” 2001, vol. 93, no. 1, s. 187–198.
Mayer R., Moreno R., A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory, „Journal of Educational Psychology” 1998, vol. 90, no. 2, s. 312–320.
Mayer R., Moreno R., Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning, „Educational Psychologist” 2003, vol. 38, no. 1, s. 43–52.
McMillan J.H., Hearn J., Student self-assessment: The key to stronger student motivation and higher achievement, „Educational Horizons” 2008, vol. 87, no. 1, s. 40–49.
Michaelides M.P., Durkee P., Self-regulation versus self-discipline in predicting achievement: A replication study with secondary data, „Frontiers in Education” 2021, vol. 6.
Musiał E., Nowe trendy w edukacji – koncepcja „głębokiego uczenia się”, „Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Humanitas. Pedagogika” 2018, z. 16, s. 55–64.
Nordengren C., Goal-setting practices that support a learning culture, „The Phi Delta Kappan” 2019, vol. 101, iss. 1, s. 18–23.
Octavariny R., Ningsih F.W., Panjaitan D.H., Bangun S.M., Pardede J., Causes of Zoom fatigue in teachers during The New Normal during The New Normal Time, „Jurnal Keperawatan dan Fisioterapi” 2023, vol. 6, no. 1, s. 19–25.
Pavlov A., Duhon G., Dawes J., Examining the impact of task difficulty on student engagement and learning rates, „Journal of Behavioral Education” 2023, vol. 32, s. 527–542.
Phalet K., Andriessen I., Lens W., How future goals enhance motivation and learning in multicultural classrooms, „Educational Psychology Review” 2004, vol. 16, no. 1, s. 59–89.
Sandeen C., Integrating MOOCs into traditional higher education: The emerging ‘MOOC 3.0’ era, „Change” 2013, vol. 45, iss. 6, s. 34–39.
Schlechty P.C., Engaging students: The next level of working on the work, Jossey-Bass, 2011.
Surr W., Student goal setting: An evidence-based practice, 2018, [on-line:] https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED589978.pdf – 3.11.2023.
Varkey T.C., Varkey J.A., Ding J.B., Varkey P.K., Zeitler C., Nguyen A.M., Merhavy Z.I., Thomas C.R., Asynchronous learning: a general review of best practices for the 21st century, „Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning” 2023, vol. 16, iss. 1, s. 4–16.
Yilmaz E., Şahin M., Turgut M., Variables affecting student motivation based on academic publications, „Journal of Education and Practice” 2017, vol. 8, no. 12, s. 112–120.
Zemsky R., With a MOOC MOOC here and a MOOC MOOC there, here a MOOC, there a MOOC, everywhere a MOOC MOOC, „The Journal of General Education” 2014, vol. 63, no. 4, s. 237–243.
Zhang W., Zhang D., Zhang L.J., Metacognitive instruction for sustainable learning: Learners’ perceptions of task difficulty and use of metacognitive strategies in completing integrated speaking tasks, „Sustainability” 2021, vol. 13, no. 11.
Zhu M., Doo M.Y., The relationship among motivation, self-monitoring, self-management, and learning strategies of MOOC learners, „Journal of Computing in Higher Education” 2022, vol. 34, s. 321–342.
Zimmerman B.J., Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects, „American Educational Research Journal” 2008, vol. 45, iss. 1, s. 166–183.
Zimmermann B.J., Kitsantas A., Comparing students’ self-discipline and self-regulation measures and their prediction of academic achievement, „Contemporary Educational Psychology” 2014, vol. 39, iss. 2, s. 145–155.
Pobrania
Opublikowane
Jak cytować
Numer
Dział
Licencja
Prawa autorskie (c) 2025 AUPC Studia ad Bibliothecarum Scientiam Pertinentia
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
