RESUME Exploiting E-Learning in Future Teachers’ Education

RESUME

Exploiting E-Learning in Future Teachers’ Education

Roman Hrušecký and Ivan Kalaš Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia hrusecky@fmph.uniba.sk; Ivan.Kalas @fmph.uniba.sk

A.     Clarifying essential concepts

Roman Hrušecký and Ivan Kalas, they began research with a more precise characterization of e-Learning. This concept has many different forms, interpretations and approaches, which receive different names in different contexts, and sometimes appear to disappear or change its meaning. The following list of some examples of e-Learning: Computer-aided learning (CAL), computer based training (CBT), web-based learning (WBL), web based training (WBT), blended learning, online learning, open and distance learning (ODL ), computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), learning management systems (LMS), etc.. For those considering only three distinct phases or forms of e-Learning: e-Learning support, blended learning and online learning. Figure 1 presents their specifications and the relationships among them.

they interpret 'support productive' approach in his research as a pedagogical intervention that contributes to the attractiveness and efficiency of the learning process, which is modern and appropriate for
The 21st century requirements, better in line with expectations and the needs of the 'digital world'.

Roman Hrušecký and Ivan Kalas identified five different forms of teaching to learning: (traditional) lecture, lecture illustrated with interaction, practice, seminars, and workshop1. And for footnotes is easy to see that the traditional lecture really only plays a modest role in this course of our future teachers, while the most common are illustrated lecture with interaction and practice. On the other hand, we must admit that the modern form of workshops represented less.

B.     How to build a 'metric system' to characterize different forms of teaching

Roman Hrušecký Ivan Kalas and classify each of the four perspectives: from the perspective of students, faculty, type of digital technology and pedagogy implemented. In each perspective they decided to explore one or more indicators. For example, in our study the pedagogy applied three different indicators: teaching methods, forms of communication and collaboration2 level. Figure 2 illustrates how we imagined perspectives and indicators in a radar chart. Note, that each indicator is one axis. Real axis can be considered as independent variables to their values ​​always been qualitative data, either (a) categorical, (b) ordinal, or (c) Interval (see eg Newby, 2010).

Figure 2. A radar chart of four perspectives and ten indicators to characterize different teaching forms

And this is a process indicator values ​​and object / teacher to visualize each of the five forms of the teaching of the course of our future teachers (Figure 3 illustrates the process, watch the upper right that defines illustrated lecture with interaction). On each axis (ie in each indicator) we indicated either:

·         The characteristic value of the cone, for example, on an axis that is personal communication;

·         ctwo of values ​​to show a set of values ​​or ranges of values, for example, the role of the lecturer axis is two adjacent val-value lectures and shows, on-axis digital technology two values ​​shown indicate all categories of DT between a data projector and the Internet;

·         cinterval characteristic values ​​indicated by one of the values ​​and the mid-point between the value and the value of the other. For example, on the axis of extrinsic motivation, and we choose the midpoint between the extrinsic and intrinsic. Interval shows all levels of extrinsic motivation than intrinsic (all values ​​'closer' to extrinsic).

Then we connected the indicated values of all adjacent axes: either a point to point (if there is only one value indicated on each of two adjacent axes), or a point to both end points of an interval (if there is one and two values or two and one), or an interval to another interval (if there are two and two values indicated). In such way a closed polygon results for each teaching method, see Fig. 3. It determines the area into which all particular teach- ing/learning activities of that form should fit.

C.     Using the same system to characterize the various forms of e-Learning

On the left of Fig. 4 we can see that the support of e-Learning provides opportunity-tunities for teaching practice also instructive because it consists of values ​​'national tradition' indicators are of no value except for the indicator to digital technology. Excluding no for axis digital technology is common to all forms of e-Learning, which is very natural. We can also see that the area of ​​the opportunities offered by blended learning is the widest of all - from the traditional paradigm instructive to constructive paradigm. However, it gives no opportunity of teaching form, which does not require digital technology.

If we observe a radar chart to learn online, we'll see, that it gives no room for any teaching / learning activities, which is based solely on the form of personal communication. It also requires more than extrin-sic intrinsic motivation, more active than passive, and student preparation is often required. If we look at indicators of digital technology, we will know that the most commonly used is a computer, the Internet and videoconferencing. Special digital technology has not been used so far as their operation will usually require personal manipulation by learners.

D.     Matching different forms of teaching to the form of e-Learning

Finally, they use a system perspective and indicators to consider which form of e-Learning can be implemented in the form of teaching in the following ways. They covered every form of e-learning with every form of teaching and analyzing the resultant areas of opportunity or possibility of conflict in some indicators. In this way we get 15 different comparisons. They clearly show that when we want to assess the feasibility, the decisive role played by the indicators: student attitudes, motivation and preparation, then use a special DT and communication.

Figure 5 shows how online learning can be used in a traditional lecture (left) and in lectures illustrated with interaction (right). In comparison to the left we can observe zero games in attitude, communication and digital technology indicators, and fit only marginal in all other indicators. Of conflict, we can conclude that the use of online learning in the traditional lecture is almost impossible.

Figure 6 illustrates how online learning games with four less traditional forms of teaching (ie, all except the traditional lecture). In this visualization, However, we have hidden the two original layers and darkened only the inter-section of the two regions. In the final section of the paper we will reflect on how the results can be interpreted.

E.     Interesting findings

They believe that the intersection of the resulting describe fields an opportunity to exploit the form of e-Learning in the form of teaching. If the intersection between retaining indicators with interval value, more options exist integration. It may also happen that a particular indicator has a zero crossing (such as online communication). Actually, we can conclude that the game is impossible. A more productive approach is to take this as an indicator of the problem: we would have to conclude that online learning can be implemented in the form of teaching only if we receive a personal communication to the electronic transition (at least in some seminar or other forms of teaching). Here are some other findings from their research:

·         Integrate the form of e-Learning in the traditional lecture is not possible. Therefore, we decided to change all the traditional lecture course of our future teachers' in a lecture illustrated with interaction;

·         Blended learning can be easily integrated into any form of teaching
(except the traditional lecture);

·         The most productive game of the implementation of online learning with seminar (generating the largest room of the opportunity).