Suscripción a Biblioteca: Guest
International Journal on Innovations in Online Education

Publicado 4 números por año

ISSN Imprimir: 2377-9519

ISSN En Línea: 2377-9527

H-Index: 3

Indexed in

EVALUATING TECHNOLOGIES FOR COMMUNICATING MATHEMATICAL AND SCIENTIFIC REASONING IN FULLY ONLINE ENGINEERING COURSES:A TECHNOLOGY CHOICE FRAMEWORK

Volumen 5, Edición 2, 2021, 20 pages
DOI: 10.1615/IntJInnovOnlineEdu.2021038935
Get accessDownload

SINOPSIS

Studying science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees online brings unique challenges since students and academics are expected to digitally communicate complex mathematical and scientific formulas as well as draw graphs and diagrams in online environments that are ill-suited to the task. Current practices using linear syntax, graphical equation editors, and scanned handwriting all have limitations. Digital inking (that is, the use of digital stylus-based technologies and computer software to produce digitized handwriting) offers one solution. This practice-orientated case study aimed to identify and integrate a suitable technology that enabled students and academics to communicate STEM reasoning across a fully online engineering degree. The technology needed to be affordable and widely available, easy to install and use, have minimal academic integrity concerns, and be compatible with existing systems including the learning management system, virtual classroom software, and online exam invigilation software. Guided by learning design considerations and institutional, disciplinary, student, and teacher requirements, the case study demonstrates a process of decision making that enables the development of high-quality courses, positive student learning outcomes, and staff development opportunities. After reflecting upon and analyzing our experiences, we propose a concise technology choice framework to guide others through the process of technology investigation and adoption for online STEM courses.

REFERENCIAS
  1. Akelbek, S., & Akelbek, M. (2009). Developing and delivering a successful online math course despite the limitations of cost efficient technology available to students. In T. Bastiaens, J. Dron, & C. Xin (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 33-36), Vancouver, Canada.

  2. Alksnis, N., Malin, B., Chung, J., Halupka, V., & Vo, T. (2020). From paper to digital: Learnings from a digital uplift program. Proceedings of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education 2020 Conference, Sydney, Australia.

  3. Anstey, L., & Watson, G. (2018, September 10). A rubric for evaluating e-learning tools in higher education. EDUCAUSE Review.

  4. Armano, T., Borsero, M., Capietto, A., Murru, N., Panzarea, A., & Ruighi, A. (2018). On the accessibility of Moodle 2 by visually impaired users, with a focus on mathematical content. Universal Access in the Information Society, 17(4), 865-874. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10209-017-0546-8.

  5. Basham, J. D., & Marino, M. T. (2013). Understanding STEM education and supporting students through universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4), 8-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991304500401.

  6. Bourne, J., Harris, D., & Mayadas, F. (2005). Online engineering education: Learning anywhere, anytime. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 131-146. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00834.x.

  7. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton University Press.

  8. Brady, M., Devitt, A., & Kiersey, R. A. (2019). Academic staff perspectives on technology for assessment (TfA) in higher education: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 3080-3098. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12742.

  9. Galik, M., & Coll, R. K. (2012). Investigating socioscientific issues via scientific habits of mind: Development and validation of the Scientific Habits of Mind Survey. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1909-1930. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693. 2012.685197.

  10. Cramp, J., Medlin, J. F., Lake, P., & Sharp, C. (2019). Lessons learned from implementing remotely invigilated online exams. Journal of Teaching and Learning Practice, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.16.1.10.

  11. Cuoco, A., Paul Goldenberg, E., & Mark, J. (1996). Habits of mind: An organizing principle for mathematics curricula. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15(4), 375-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(96)90023-1.

  12. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.

  13. Deak, C., Kumar, B., Szabo, I., Nagy, G., & Szentesi, S. (2021). Evolution of new approaches in pedagogy and STEM with inquiry-based learning and post-pandemic scenarios. Education Sciences, 11(7), 319. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11070319.

  14. Dekkers, A., & Hayes, C. (2020, October 13-14). The new chalkboard: The role of digital pen technologies in tertiary mathematics teaching within Covid-19 restricted environments [Conference session]. Scholarship of Tertiary Teaching Online Conference, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia. https://cloudstor.aarnet.edu.au/plus/s/EVNVVifqiGGeQMM.

  15. Draskovic, D., Misic, M., & Stanisavljevic, Z. (2016). Transition from traditional to LMS supported examining: A case study in computer engineering. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 24(5), 775-786. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.21750.

  16. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363.

  17. Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433-441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y.

  18. Iwundu, C. (2018). Enhancing synchronous online learning using digital graphics tablets. In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds., Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 180-186), Washington, DC, United States. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

  19. Lafreniere, M. (2016). Best practices of digital inking for student engagement. Proceedings of the EdMedia 2016 World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 292-297), Vancouver, Canada. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

  20. Loch, B., Lowe, T. W., & Mestel, B. D. (2015). Master's students' perceptions of Microsoft Word for mathematical typesetting. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 34(2), 91- 90 McInnes, Cramp, & Aitchison 101. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hru020.

  21. Loch, B., & McDonald, C. (2007). Synchronous chat and electronic ink for distance support in mathematics. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 3(3).

  22. Lucas, B., & Hanson, J. (2016). Thinking like an engineer: Using engineering habits of mind and signature pedagogies to redesign engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (IJEP), 6(2), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v6i2.5366 Maclaren, P. (2014). The new chalkboard: The role of digital pen technologies in tertiary mathematics teaching. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 33(1), 16-26. https:// doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hru001.

  23. Maclaren, P., Wilson, D., & Klymchuk, S. (2017). I see what you are doing: Student views on lecturer use of tablet PCs in the engineering mathematics classroom. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(2), 173-188. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3257.

  24. May, H. (2018). Wacom leads to a more efficient classroom model. Journal for Research and Practice in College Teaching, 3(2), 178-181.

  25. Mayer, R. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 403-423. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12197.

  26. McInnes, R., Aitchison, C., & Sloot, B. (2020). Building online degrees quickly: Academic experiences and institutional benefits. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 17(5). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.17.5.2.

  27. Misfeldt, M., & Sanne, A. (2012). Formula editors and handwriting in mathematical e- learning. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Eds.), Virtual Learning Environments: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications (pp. 1578-1593). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1- 60960-875-0.ch017.

  28. Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 42(5), 34-37. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4930420508.

  29. Nuland, S. E. V., Hall, E., & Langley, N. R. (2020). STEM crisis teaching: Curriculum design with e-learning tools. FASEB BioAdvances, 2(11), 631-637. https://doi.org/10.1096/ fba.2020-00049.

  30. Parkes, J., & Zimmaro, D. (2016). Learning and assessing with multiple-choice questions in college classrooms. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315727769.

  31. Puentedura, R. R. (2010). SAMR and TPCK: Intro to advanced practice. Retrieved on April, 14, 2021, from http://hippasus.com/resources/sweden2010/SAMR_TPCK_ IntroToAdvancedPractice.pdf.

  32. Seethaler, S., Burgasser, A., Bussey, T., Eggers, J., Lo, S., Rabin, J., Stevens, L., & Weizman, H. (2020). A research-based checklist for development and critique of STEM instructional videos. Journal of College Science Teaching, 50(1). https://www.nsta.org/ journal-college-science-teaching/journal-college-science-teaching-septemberoctober-2020/ research.

  33. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59. https://doi.org/10.1162/0011526054622015.

  34. Soares, F., & Lopes, A. P. (2018). Online assessment through Moodle platform. ICERI2018 Proceedings (pp. 4952-4960). https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2018.2124.

  35. Stephens, J. (2018). The graphics tablet-a valuable tool for the digital STEM teacher. The Physics Teacher, 56(4), 230-231. https://doi.org/10.1119/15028238.

  36. Trenholm, S. (2007). A review of cheating in fully asynchronous online courses: A math or fact-based course perspective. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(3), 281-300. https://doi.org/10.2190/Y78L-H21X-241N-7Q02.

  37. Urban, S. (2017). Pen-enabled, real-time student engagement for teaching in STEM subjects. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(8), 1051-1059. https://doi.org/10.1021/ acs.jchemed.7b00127.

  38. Van Dijk, J. (2017). Digital divide: Impact of access. In The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764. wbieme0043.

  39. Winberg, C., Adendorff, H., Bozalek, V., Conana, H., Pallitt, N., Wolff, K., Olsson, T., & Roxa, T. (2019). Learning to teach STEM disciplines in higher education: A critical review of the literature. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(8), 930-947. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13562517.2018.1517735.

  40. Winger, B., Vo, T., Halupka, V., & Wordley, S. (2019). Scoping e-assessment tools for engineering. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference for the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE 2019): Educators Becoming Agents of Change: Innovate, Integrate, Motivate (pp. 404-410). Brisbane, Queensland. Engineers Australia.

  41. Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage Publications.

Portal Digitalde Biblioteca Digital eLibros Revistas Referencias y Libros de Ponencias Colecciones Precios y Políticas de Suscripcione Begell House Contáctenos Language English 中文 Русский Português German French Spain