Using Traditional LMS for Mathematics Instruction - Lessons Learned from Instructor-made Videos

Izolda Fotiyeva, Ebony Terrell Shockley

Abstract

The authors discuss the outcomes of a traditional and online mathematics course in the Mid-Atlantic United States. In the undergraduate Algebra course being investigated, the researchers used a matched pair design to determine whether technology infusion had positive effects on successful acquisition of mathematics skills. They also researched whether there was a pass/fail rate difference between the technology-enhanced class and the face-to-face class. The results indicated that there appeared to be a relationship between the instructional method and the pass/fail rate when comparing the traditional class and the technologyenhanced class.

References

  1. Bonk, C. J., 2011. YouTube anchors and enders: The use of shared online video content as a Macrocontext for learning. Asia-Pacific Collaborative Education Journal, 7(1), pp.13-24.
  2. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P., 1989. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-41. doi:10.3102/ 0013189X018001032.
  3. Boshier, R., 1990. Socio-psychological factors in electronic networking. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 9(1), 49-64.
  4. Carr, S., 2000. As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 11, A. pp.39-41.
  5. Goldstein, E. B., 2010. Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research, and everyday Experience, 3rd edn, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  6. Hartsell, T., & Yuen, S. C.-Y. (2006). Video streaming in online learning. AACE Journal, 14(1), pp.31-43. Available at: http://www.editlib.org/p/6152. [Accessed 10 January 2015].
  7. Leventhall, L., 2004. Bridging the gap between face to face and online math tutoring. Paper presented at The International Congress of Mathematics Education-10, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2004.
  8. Michelich, V., 2002, January/February. Streaming media to enhance teaching and improve learning.
  9. The Technology Source. Available at: http://www.technologysource.org/article/streaming_m edia_to_enhance_teaching_and_improve_learning/. [Accessed 5 January 2015].
  10. Neuhauser, C., 2002. Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), pp.99-113.
  11. Ormrod, J. E., 2008. Human learning, 5th edn, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  12. Morgan, C.K. & Tam, M. (1999). Unraveling the complexities of distance education student attrition. Distance Education, 20(1), pp.96-108.
  13. Paivio, A., 1986. Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  14. Pan, G., Sen, S., Starrett, D., Bonk, C., Rodgers, M., Tikoo, M., & Powell, D., 2012. Instructor-made videos as a learner scaffolding tool. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(4).
  15. Phipps, R. & Merisotis, J., 1999. What's the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
  16. Rose, K. K., 2009. Student perceptions of the use of instructor-made videos in online and face-to-face classes. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(3).
  17. Seng, L. & Mohamad, F., 2002. Online learning, is it meant for science courses? The Internet and Higher Education, pp.109-118.
  18. Smith, G.G. & Ferguson. D., 2004. Learning math problem-solving in online courses. Proceedings of ELearn. 2004: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Healthcare & Higher Education, Washington, DC.
  19. Smith, G.G., Ferguson, D. & Caris, M., 2002. Teaching online versus face-to-face. Journal ofEducational Technology Systems, 30(4), pp.337-364.
  20. Smith, G.G., Ferguson, D. & Gupta, S., 2004.Diagrams and math notation in e-learning:Growing pains of a new generation. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 35(1), pp.681-695.
  21. Swan, K., 2001. Immediacy, social presence, and asynchronous discussion. In Elements of quality online education, Volume 3 in the Sloan-C series, The Sloan Consortium New York.
  22. Thompson, E., 1997. Distance education drop-out: What can we do? In R. Pospisil & L.Willcoxson, eds.1997. Learning through teaching, pp.324-332. Proceedings of the 6th Annual TeachingLearning Forum, Murdoch University, February 1997. Perth: Murdoch University.
  23. Toppin, I. (2011). Video lecture capture (VLC) system: A comparison of student versus faculty perceptions. Education and Information Technologies, 15(4), 383- 393.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Fotiyeva I. and Terrell Shockley E. (2015). Using Traditional LMS for Mathematics Instruction - Lessons Learned from Instructor-made Videos . In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU, ISBN 978-989-758-108-3, pages 338-342. DOI: 10.5220/0005495603380342


in Bibtex Style

@conference{csedu15,
author={Izolda Fotiyeva and Ebony Terrell Shockley},
title={Using Traditional LMS for Mathematics Instruction - Lessons Learned from Instructor-made Videos},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU,},
year={2015},
pages={338-342},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0005495603380342},
isbn={978-989-758-108-3},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU,
TI - Using Traditional LMS for Mathematics Instruction - Lessons Learned from Instructor-made Videos
SN - 978-989-758-108-3
AU - Fotiyeva I.
AU - Terrell Shockley E.
PY - 2015
SP - 338
EP - 342
DO - 10.5220/0005495603380342