The IRMA Community
Newsletters
Research IRM
Click a keyword to search titles using our InfoSci-OnDemand powered search:
|
Effects of the Drewlite CSCL Platform on Students’ Learning Outcomes
|
|
Author(s): Omid Noroozi (Wageningen University, The Netherlands), Harm Biemans (Wageningen University, The Netherlands), Maria C. Busstra (Wageningen University, The Netherlands), Martin Mulder (Wageningen University, The Netherlands), Vitaliy Popov (Wageningen University, The Netherlands)and Mohammad Chizari (Tarbiat Modares University, Iran)
Copyright: 2012
Pages: 14
Source title:
Collaborative and Distributed E-Research: Innovations in Technologies, Strategies and Applications
Source Author(s)/Editor(s): Angel A. Juan (Open University of Catalonia, Spain), Thanasis Daradoumis (Open University of Catalonia, Spain), Meritxell Roca (Open University of Catalonia (UOC), Spain), Scott E. Grasman (Rochester Institute of Technology, USA)and J. Faulin (Public University of Navarre, Spain)
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-0125-3.ch013
Purchase
|
Abstract
This chapter presents a case study of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) in the field of human nutrition and health at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. More specifically, this study investigates the effect of the type of collaboration (personal discussion in front of a shared computer vs. online discussion) in CSCL on students’ learning outcomes. A pre-test, post-test design was used. Eighty-two students were asked (as an individual pre-test) to design and analyze a study which evaluates a certain dietary assessment method. Subsequently, they were asked to discuss their evaluation studies in randomized pairs. The pairs in one group discussed their task results online and the pairs in the other group discussed their results face-to-face while sharing one computer, in both cases using the CSCL platform Drewlite. As an individual post-test, students had to re-design and re-analyze the same evaluation study. Learning outcomes were measured based on the results of teachers’ regular evaluation of students’ achievements as well as on the quality of the students’ knowledge construction. The results showed that both teachers’ marks and the quality of knowledge construction of all students improved significantly from pre-test to post-test. However, the type of collaboration had no significantly different effect. Furthermore, the scores on knowledge construction were consistent with exam results as obtained by teachers’ evaluations.
Related Content
|
Prasanna Ranjith Christodoss, Rajesh Natarajan.
© 2022.
14 pages.
|
|
K. Uday Kiran, Gowtham Mamidisetti, Chandra shaker Pittala, V. Vijay, Rajeev Ratna Vallabhuni.
© 2022.
12 pages.
|
|
Amalraj Irudayasamy, Prasanna Ranjith Christotodoss, Rajesh Natarajan.
© 2022.
20 pages.
|
|
Koppula Srinivas Rao, S. Saravanan, Kasula Raghu, V. Rajesh, Pattem Sampath Kumar.
© 2022.
15 pages.
|
|
Swapna B., Arulmozhi P., Kamalahasan M., Anuradha V., Meenaakumari M., Hemasundari H., Aathilakshmi T..
© 2022.
21 pages.
|
|
Archana K. S., Sivakumar B., Siva Prasad Reddy K.V, Arul Stephen C., Vijayalakshmi A., Ebenezer Abishek B..
© 2022.
15 pages.
|
|
Swapna B., M. Kamalahasan, S. Gayathri, S. Srinidhi, H. Hemasundari, S. Sowmiya, S. Shavan Kumar.
© 2022.
12 pages.
|
|
|