A REVIEW OF E-LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES

Opportunities for Teaching and Learning

Annemieke Craig

, Jo Coldwell-Neilson

, Annegret Goold

and Jenine Beekhuyzen

Deakin University, Geelong, Australia

Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

Keywords: e-Learning, e-Learning Technologies, e-Technologies, Higher Education, Literature Review.

Abstract: The number of different e-learning technologies available to support teaching and learning is growing

exponentially. A major issue for faculty and educational developers in higher education is to determine

which e-learning technology is most appropriate to support their particular teaching needs and provide

optimum learning opportunities for students. Over the last few years a vast amount of literature has been

published on e-learning technologies and how they are used in education Therefore the decision to use a

particular technology should be based on sound research and clear evidence. This paper reviews many of

these e-learning technologies and provides information regarding their use and the opportunities afforded by

them.

1 INTRODUCTION

The literature provides many definitions of e-

learning since the term was first introduced in the

late 1990s (Gerhard and Mayre 2002). Romiszowski

(2004) counted more than 20 different definitions

within 50 articles. In this study the comprehensive

definition from Tavangarian, Leypold, Nölting,

Röser and Voight’s (2004) review of the literature

has been adopted: E-learning is “all forms of

electronic supported learning and teaching, which

are procedural in character and aim to effect the

construction of knowledge with reference to

individual experience, practice and knowledge of the

learner. Information and communication systems,

whether networked or not, serve as specific media

…to implement the learning process” (p. 274). E-

learning then is supported by technology.

Brewer, De Jonge and Stout (2001) suggest that:

“Ideally, technology plays a transparent supporting

role in the learning process … appropriate

integration of learning technologies casts technology

in the background … gratuitous and/or awkwardly

or inappropriately employed learning technologies

can actually juxtapose the role and importance of

technology allowing it to compete with the learning

process” (p. 39).

Educators need to be well informed and familiar

with the available technologies if they are to use

them effectively for e-learning. However the number

of different technologies available to educators

continues to grow rapidly and technologies not

originally considered as teaching tools (such as

Facebook) are now permeating teaching and

learning spaces. There are also growing expectations

that educators are tech-savvy and familiar with a the

wide range of technologies. These expectations have

placed increasing pressure on educators (Orton-

Johnson 2009; Thinyane 2010).

This paper is a review of recent literature of

current technologies used in e-learning in higher

education. It describes some of the uses of these

technologies for teaching and learning and

highlights the opportunities afforded by their use.

Throughout this paper the term e-technology is

used to describe a technology that supports e-

learning.

2 BACKGROUND

Deakin University, a large university in Australia

where this project is centred, has a focus on

providing learning environments that “are flexible,

student-centred and accessible to our diverse range

of students, utilising appropriate technology to

enhance teaching and learning and providing student

Craig A., Coldwell-Neilson J., Goold A. and Beekhuyzen J..

A REVIEW OF E-LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES - Opportunities for Teaching and Learning.

DOI: 10.5220/0003915400290041

In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2012), pages 29-41

ISBN: 978-989-8565-06-8

 2012 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

support services which are responsive to student

needs and responsive to students support needs”

(derived from the University Teaching and Learning

Plan). The University has sponsored many e-

learning research activities in an effort to inform not

only teaching practice, but also policy development.

One of the projects funded in 2010 was a study

that aimed to provide an improved student

experience of e-learning by developing resources for

academics to enable them to make informed

decisions as to the best use of e-technologies.

An initial step was to review the e-technologies

used for teaching and learning at Deakin University

at that time. This revealed that the University

supported 23 components which were core within,

or power-linked from the online learning

environment, as well as nine other e-technologies.

The authors were also aware of at least seven e-

technologies that were being used on an ad-hoc basis

by staff to support teaching and learning. This list of

e-technologies (39) together with a categorisation by

Hamilton (2010), were used as the starting point to

compile categories of relevant technologies (see

Table 1).

Table 1: Categories of e-technologies.

e-technology Tool Examples

ssessment and Survey

tools

Respondus, Quiz Builder, StudyMate,

Zoomerang, Survey Monkey,

ExamBuilder

synchronous

Communication

Email, Announcements, Discussion

forum, SMS

igital Repositories

Google Scholar, ePortfolio,

Equella,Youtube

anagemen

and

dministration tools

Turnitin, Gradebook, iGoogle,

myYahoo

hotosharing

Flickr, Gallery2, Zoomr, Picasa,

Photobucket

odcasts and

Streaming

Podcast, iLecture, iTunesU, MyPod,

ePodcast

7 Shared Documents

Google Docs, Zoho Writer,

SlideShare, Elgg, Clearspace

8 Social Bookmarking

del.icio.us, CiteULike, Simple, Diigo,

Connotea, digg, reddit

9 Social Networking

Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, Ning,

Subscribed Content

elivery

Google Reader, Bloglines, RSS Feeds

Synchronous

Communications

Google Talk, iChat, CUworld, ICQ,

Skype, Elluminate Live, MSN /Yahoo

messenger

12 Virtual Worlds

Second Life (SL), Virtual Graffiti,

eSimulations

Weblogs and

icroblogs

Blogger, Wordpress, Twitter,

RAMBLE, Yammer

14 Wiki

PBWorks, Wikispaces, MediaWiki,

WikidPad, Zwiki

It should be noted that the broader categories of

virtual learning environments (VLE), online learning

environments (OLE), and learning management

systems (LMS) were excluded. The exclusions

include products such as Blackboard, SAKAI,

Moodle, Desire2Learn, AJAX. The rational here was

that generally these very large systems are centrally

supported within the university environment and

have adequate resources, support and exemplars to

allow informed decisions to be made about their use

to support specific pedagogical requirements, unlike

the range of e-technologies being investigated in the

study. Further, the use of such systems is usually

prescribed by the institution and therefore educators

do not have the opportunity of opting out of using

them.

A search of selected journals (Table 2) was

undertaken to explore the most recent uses of the e-

technologies in higher educational settings. These

peer-reviewed journals were chosen from the

Australian Field of Research classifications of 1301

(Educational Systems) and 1303 (Specialist Studies

in Education). This paper presents the results from

this review.

Table 2: Initial sources.

Selected journals ISSN # ERA* Rank

ALT-J Research in

Learning Technology

0968-7769

Australasian Journal of

Educational Technology

1327-7308

British Journal of

Educational Technology

0007-1013

Computers and Education

0360-1315

Educational Technology

Research and

Development

1556-6501

Higher Education

Research and

Development

1469-8366

Interactive Learning

Environments

1744-5191

Journal of Higher

Education

1573-174X

Research in Higher

Education

1573-188X

Teaching in Higher

Education

1470-1294

* Excellence in Research Australia

The focus of the encompassing project then

moved from the review of the literature to the

identification of expert users (academic staff) of the

e-technologies within the University. Their

knowledge and expertise of using these technologies

was captured through interviews. Students who were

CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

enrolled in classes in which the e-technologies were

used were invited to participate in focus groups

thereby enabling the expert views to be

complemented by the students’ perceptions of using

these technologies. These parts of the project will be

the subject of future papers.

3 REVIEW OF

E-TECHNOLOGIES

The following section provides a review of the

affordances of e-technologies identified in the

previous section, including a brief introduction of

their use for educational purposes.

3.1 Assessment and Survey Tools

Tools for formative and summative assessment

being used in higher education include: quiz and

survey tools, eExaminations and those for

visualisation and activity development. Such tools

are found to encourage student learning and enable a

better understanding of student behaviour in

teaching environments.

Online surveys or quizzes are generated for

testing purposes or used as a learning tool

incorporating automatic feedback. Surveys can be

created through an LMS, or using web-based survey

tools such as SurveyMonkey or Zoomerang. In a

study of mathematics students using a quiz built

using Respondus, Angus and Watson (2009) found

that higher exposure to such online instruments lead

to higher student learning all else being equal. The

use of the web-based MathXL, with features such as

self-paced homework and a test manager, allowed

automatic grading and targeted feedback (Buzzetto-

More and Ukoha 2009).

The use of online examinations (eExaminations)

is becoming more prevalent and there are efforts to

move away from multiple choice questions to more

sophisticated software tools. Fluck, Pullen and

Harper (2009) describe a system using an open

source CD on student owned laptop computers that

was supervised by invigilators without specialist

information technology skills.

There are also a variety of visualisation tools that

help teachers to better understand students’

cognitive levels and how they might progress

through concepts and learning materials. These tools

vary from CourseVis, that graphically renders

student tracking data collected by a CMS (Mazza

and Dimitrova, 2004), to a tool described by

Costagliola, Fuccella, Giordana and Polese (2009)

that allows tutors to monitor a learner’s strategies

during online tests by using data visualisation.

Although the focus with these tools is not on student

assessment per se, they nevertheless provide a

means of understanding behavioural patterns of

students better, thus allowing for improved

assessment processes. In a classroom, tools such as

VotApedia can enable questions to be answered by

large groups of students using their mobile phones.

Similarly an Audience Response System (aka

clickers) help motivate and engage students while

simultaneously providing feedback on their

understanding of material (Johnson and Lillis 2010).

3.2 Asynchronous Communication

In educational settings Email is a commonly used

asynchronous communication tool for one-to-one or

one-to-many online communication. It can transmit

files that include text, graphics and other multimedia

content with or in the messages. The strengths of

email include the immediacy of the technology, the

ability to connect and be connected, ease of use and

flexibility (Dawley, 2007). However these may be

seen as weaknesses as they create expectations upon

the educator to be always connected and contactable.

Other weaknesses include the potential for

misunderstandings through lack of non-verbal

triggers such as tone or mood, as well as the need to

establish and enforce boundaries and netiquette

(Koehler and Mishra, 2009). Such weaknesses are

accentuated when corresponding with distance

students or students with English as a Second

Language (ESL).

Another type of asynchronous communication

tool used in higher education is the discussion

forum, which allows participants to post to a bulletin

board or forum which can be viewed and responded

to by others at any time. However a major

disadvantage of discussion forums is the length of

time it takes to hold a conversation. Pena-Shaff,

Altman and Stephenson (2005) suggest that the use

of online discussion forums has the potential to

increase students’ participation and interaction when

used as a supplement to face-to-face learning

activities. Discussions also support online

communication and collaboration in situations where

face-to-face communication is not possible (Goold

and Coldwell, 2005). Klisc, McGill and Hobbs

(2009) suggest that when assessment is associated

with discussion, there are higher levels of

participation and quality of outcomes than when no

assessment is used.

AREVIEWOFE-LEARNINGTECHNOLOGIES-OpportunitiesforTeachingandLearning

Announcements are a further type of

asynchronous communication tool useful and widely

used in educational settings. An announcement is a

broadcast message to a predefined group of people

such as a class of learners. It is a useful way of

notifying the group(s) of breaking news, last-minute

events or simply reminders of key dates.

Announcement tools are often incorporated into

learning management systems.

Short message service (SMS) is a method for

sending messages to mobile phones and these are

becoming more commonly embedded in higher

education pedagogy. Additionally, an SMS message

can be sent from a mobile phone or from a computer

connected to the Internet. Anderson and Blackwood

(2004) report that the widespread adoption of mobile

devices together with the increased emphasis on

lifelong learning have become key drivers in the

development of applications and uses of mobile

devices. A number of experimental projects have

shown promise in this arena such as the mobile

learning tool developed by Cavus and Ibrahim

(2009) which encouraged language students to learn

new words via their mobile phones.

3.3 Digital Repositories

This category covers a plethora of different content

management systems and the search engines that

index them. Digital repositories typical in higher

education incorporate online bibliographic databases

that provide abstracts and indexing to the world’s

scientific and technical papers in wide-ranging

disciplines. Bibliographic databases, of which there

are more than 100, include PubMed, IEEE Xplore,

Scopus, Web of Knowledge, Web of Science and

Google Scholar and are easily accessible through

institutional libraries.

Another type of digital repository is the learning

repository created from combinations of in-house

and third-party resources, enabling academics to

retrieve and share these resources (Atkinson et al.,

2009). An issue with these types of sites is their

sustainability with the advent of Web 2.0 tools

where sites are “self-sustaining because users see a

value in continuing to add content and share

resources” (Conole and Culver, 2009, 763).

The ePortfolio is a type of digital repository

where the focus is on an individual’s collection of

artefacts. They facilitate “the process of collecting,

reflecting on, sharing, and presenting learning

outcomes and other professional accomplishments

via a digital medium” (Fitch, Reed, Peet and Tolman

2008, p. 38). EPortfolios have been used in

educational contexts such as:

• English language teaching for students to record

and demonstrate evidence of learning and

development (Cheng and Chau, 2009);

• As a medium for creating awareness of the

importance of lifelong learning for students

(Heinrich et al., 2007);

• Professionals who are required to provide

evidence of competence and professional

development (Kardos et al., 2009);

• Supporting and empowering women returning to

employment (Herman and Kirkup, 2008);

• As a management system to store lesson plans of

student teachers and allow subsequent evaluation

and detailed analysis (Swan, 2009).

The use of ePortfolios can help students better

understand learning goals and reflect on the

knowledge and skills they have developed

(Buzzetto-More, 2010); (Lopez-Fernandez and

Rodriguez-Illera, 2009). Structure and organisation

of ePortfolios should reflect the “messages” that the

tool is bringing (Brandes and Boskie, 2008).

Innovative use of ePortfolios is being made in

areas that link education to the domain of

professional development planning, supporting

reflection on professional goals and career planning

(Bratengeyer, 2008) and in work-integrated learning

(Koch, 2010). In these contexts, Dorninger and

Schrack (2008) emphasise the importance of having

a common framework of content demands and

technical environments.

3.4 Management and Administration

Tools

Tools that are used for teaching and the management

of students and their learning include those tools

used for administration of students’ grades and

reporting of student progress, and tools for the

detection of plagiarism. Also included here are tools

to support the building of groups and provision of

infrastructure to support group work such as private

discussion spaces and shared document spaces.

An electronic gradebook is a student information

system which stores students’ demographic data and

allows grades and other data to be recorded. The

data can be edited, released for viewing and

exported. “Students really appreciate the ability to

see their overall progress in a course at any given

time” (Dawley, 2007, p. 185). Tracking and

reporting tools provide the means to monitor

CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

students’ access to online components of a course or

of completion of tasks.

Online plagiarism detection software is used in a

variety of ways. It is often a way of encouraging

students to reference correctly and to write

assignments in their own words (Sheridan, Alany

and Brake 2005). For teachers it is a detection tool to

ensure that work submitted by students is their own.

Online plagiarism software can also be used purely

as an assignment submission tool (Dahl 2007).

While Turnitin is the most widely used plagiarism

detection software available in high schools and

universities, other tools with specialised features

have been developed for internal use (see for

example Butakov and Scherbinin, 2009). Chao,

Wilhelm and Neureuther (2009) showed that

students who had been given instruction and

exercises in paraphrasing and citing to avoid

plagiarism, were less likely to plagiarise.

Personalised homepages allow users to pull

information such as news, weather, gadgets,

webpage links and RSS feeds from multiple sources

into one fully customizable page. Netvibes,

Pageflakes, My Yahoo, iGoogle and Windows Live

all allow the creation of personalised homepages.

There appears to be very little literature on the use of

homepages for educational purposes but Marathe

(2010) has begun to explore the creativity enhancing

potential of such environments with students.

3.5 Photo Sharing

The use of photosharing websites has the potential to

“open lines of dialogue, communication, and

learning” (Fisher and Baird, 2006 - 2007, p. 22).

Flickr is an example of a website which enables the

publishing of photos online so that they can be

shared with others either publicly or privately. Users

can make annotations, leave comments and have

ongoing discussions about the images. The

discussion generated by the group remains visible in

Flickr for future reference.

Buffington (2008) explains that such sites can be

used to compare and contrast images in fashion or

art courses. Students on a field trip, who take photos

with their mobile phones, can instantly post them

online. Later the students can reflect and discuss,

through the photosharing tool, their experiences and

observation with the rest of their learning

community (Fisher and Baird, 2006 - 2007). Godwin

(2007) describes how a group of nearly 2000

librarians has formed on Flickr. They have

accumulated over 13,000 pictures and images

accessible to all members. Another example of an

educational use is the group of photography students

who have collaborated across universities to create

and comment on virtual photo albums using

Gallery2 (Samarawickrema, 2007).

3.6 Podcasts and Streaming

The term podcast is a contraction of iPod and

broadcast. A podcast is an audio or video file

(educational resources in this case) that can be

created and made available for download from the

Internet to a computer or mobile device that is

capable of playing MP3 or MP4 files on demand.

Most podcasts have RSS capability (see subscribed

content) allowing users to automate the process of

accessing recent additions. An alternative to

podcasts are streamed files which contain data sent

in a compressed format that is played in real time at

the destination. Unlike podcasts, playing a streamed

file can lead to stop-start reception depending on the

speed at which the data is transmitted. Such media is

becoming commonplace in education, particularly in

distance learning with many of the world’s

prestigious universities now distributing their

lectures through services such as iTunes (e.g.

Stanford and Harvard).

Considerable research has been undertaken into

the use of both teacher-generated and student-

generated podcasts in learning environments. Hew

(2009) reports that the most common use of podcasts

is for delivery of lectures and supplementary

recordings. With the advent of iTunesU, podcasting

was touted as the answer to learning anytime,

anywhere and high profile universities made

podcasts of lecture series freely available

(McKinney et al., 2009). Other projects have

demonstrated the versatility and efficacy of podcasts

as a means of engaging students in their learning

(Buffington, 2008); (Lazzari, 2009); (Middleton,

2009). Barriers to sustainable use of podcasts in

education include unfamiliarity with the technology,

lack of perceived relevance to teaching or learning

and lack of time to prepare podcasts (Hew, 2009).

Middleton (2009) highlights lack of technical

support and technical confidence as barriers to

institutional scalability of podcasting. However

Sutton-Brady, Scott, Taylor, Carabetta and Clark

(2009, p. 219) suggest that “the majority of students

believe they gained learning benefits from podcasts

and appreciated the flexibility of the medium”.

3.7 Shared Documents

Numerous collaboration applications exist which

AREVIEWOFE-LEARNINGTECHNOLOGIES-OpportunitiesforTeachingandLearning

enable the storing, editing and reviewing of

documents in a virtual space. This can be done by

multiple individuals, either in real time or

asynchronously. By using a web browser and an

application such as Google Docs students can access

a group’s documents, edit and save them

(Southavilay et al., 2009). Shared document

technologies such as Google Docs are considered

particularly useful if or when an institution adopts

gmail (google mail) as their email system, which has

been the case in many Australian universities. Such

technologies are then extremely convenient

particularly for students.

These collaboration technologies enable students

and faculty to see what changes have been made to

the documents and by whom. This facility is not

confined to text documents but a group can be

working collaboratively on spreadsheets and

presentations (EDUCAUSE, 2008) which is

considered useful in group work situations.

3.8 Social Bookmarking

Social bookmarking is the practice of saving a link

to a web site as a public or private bookmark then

tagging it with meaningful keywords (Lomas, 2005).

These bookmarks are then available, in an organised

manner, from any internet connected device

(Buffington, 2008). It is possible to see how many

other users have bookmarked a site, what else these

users have bookmarked, and to search for resources

by tags, person or popularity. Heymann, Koutrika

and Garcia-Molina (2008) suggest that this user

generated content is a new source of information as

it describes the web pages directly.

Commonly used social bookmarking sites

include del.icio.us, Simple and Diigo as well as

Connotea and CiteULike which are aimed

predominately at scientists (Godwin, 2007).

However there are over 250 other sites that offer this

type of service. In 2008 about 115 million

bookmarks existed in del.icio.us alone (Heymann et

al., 2008).

In an educational setting Lomas (2005) suggests

that social bookmarking simplifies the distribution

of resources such as reference lists, bibliographies

and articles to students and colleagues. Buffington

(2008) organises her students to use social

bookmarking to build a repository of information.

Shared bookmarks can lead to the discovery of

further resources while the creation of tags also

encourages critical thinking (Godwin, 2007), which

suggests they are particularly useful in educational

contexts. Lomas (2005) however has two concerns

with social bookmarking which could occur when

using them in teaching: users may assign

inconsistent, inadequate or even negative tags to

resources; and the storage of data in yet another

location outside of the university learning

management system that has to be maintained and

updated, adding another level of complexity.

3.9 Social Networking

Social networking creates online communities where

people share interests and activities. Users are able

to choose how they are “seen” within this

community by creating profiles for themselves and

can choose what information they wish to share.

While social networking sites like Facebook,

MySpace and Bebo were not developed as

educational tools they have been eagerly adopted by

some educational institutions seeking new levels of

student engagement and interactivity (Boon and

Sinclair, 2009). Eberhardt (2007) notes that

Facebook is a feature of contemporary student life

and transition to university can be eased through

interactions with numerous online communities.

Some educational institutions are concerned by the

possibility of postings which might be considered

inappropriate and they addressed this by blocking

access to Facebook through their network (Bugeja,

2006). Contrary to the negative perceptions of using

this very popular technology in an educational

context, De Villiers (2010) found that the use of

Facebook for academic discussions with

postgraduate distance learning students enhanced

student’s learning and insight.

Cloudworks is one social networking site

specifically developed for educational purposes.

Conole and Culver (2009) state that Cloudworks

harnesses Web 2.0 principles of connecting and

sharing by bringing together “teachers/designers to

share, discuss and find new ideas and designs” (p.

779). LibraryThing, another social networking site

developed with an educational flavour, enables users

to share information about books that they have

read. Godwin (2007) suggests this social network

can be used to encourage students to read or to

undertake critical reviews. Using technological

infrastructures such as Joomla and Drupal, social

networking sites have also been created specifically

for individual courses or sub groups within

institutions. Each of these social networking sites

have a slightly different focus on different areas of

social interaction (Weaver and Morrison, 2008)

making their fit for purpose a necessary

consideration when using them in teaching.

CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

Boon and Sinclair (2009) caution that online

social networking does not come without concerns:

the uncertainty of someone’s online “identity” can

lead to lower levels of engagement; there can be an

emphasis on superficial issues; and problems may

arise with authenticity and trust. Students also need

to be made aware of the visibility of their online

behavior and recognize the long-term consequences

of sharing personal information and how it may

(negatively) impact future relationships, careers or

employment (Fisher and Baird, 2006 - 2007); (Kolek

and Saunders, 2008). This issue is especially

pertinent when using social networks for the

delivery or support of education, where individual

profiles and individual communications may be

accessed by faculty delivering the teaching

materials. Furthermore Foulger, Ewbank, Kay, Popp

and Carter (2009) argue that for educators, the

technology presents a new medium where the scope

of their authority and responsibility is not always

clear.

3.10 Subscribed Content Delivery (RSS

Feeds / Aggregators)

RSS, short for Really Simple Syndication or Rich

Site Summary, provides a means of keeping up-to-

date with content on the Internet that is updated

frequently. It allows content distributors to syndicate

content via an RSS file on the Web (Glotzbach et al.,

2009) which an RSS reader can then easily

download and check for updates. Individuals who

subscribe to an RSS feed are notified when new

items are added. The newsreader is accessible via

the Internet, desktop computer, an email client or

mobile phone. The feed is in a standardized format,

which allows it to be published once and viewed by

many different programs. The reader provides a user

interface to monitor and read the feeds as well as

functions that enable users to search, organise,

manage and share their RSS posts. Often email

programs and web browsers have the ability to

display feeds. Such technologies pose new

possibilities for e-learning and the distribution of

teaching materials.

There are any number of general readers easily

appropriated for education such as Google Reader

and Bloglines, and there are also specialised

aggregators freely available including MedReader

targeting medical and healthcare professionals.

Recent classroom experiments have found mixed

results with student uptake of this technology

(Glotzbach et al., 2009); (Lee et al., 2009).

3.11 Synchronous Communication

Synchronous communication has many forms and is

the closest technology-supported communication

mode to face-to-face communication. It has an

immediacy that asynchronous communication lacks.

Synchronous communication can be text or audio

based and can include video, multimedia, document

and desktop sharing. Synchronous communication is

facilitated through chat rooms, instant messaging

and video-conferencing and is often used in

education.

The need to support distance education and

remote learners has prompted the use of

synchronous tools to facilitate communication in

environments where face-to-face is not possible. It

has been used in a variety of learning environments,

including small group teleconferences (Bliesener

2006); professional development for teachers (Chen

et al., 2009); virtual assistants as online facilitators

(Blignaut and Nagel, 2009); and supporting

acquisition of study and literacy skills (De Fazio et

al., 2000).

Although some researchers have found that there

are differences in the use of synchronous tools

which are dependent on factors such as culture

(Wang and Reeves, 2007) others have found that

using such tools may cut through potential barriers.

A study undertaken by Rutter (2009) suggests that

the use of synchronous communication tools brings

benefits to student support through efficient

communication. Such tools can also be used to

promote cooperation among students who work

individually on their computers at home (Bliesener

2006) and to cross national and cultural boundaries

(Harrison et al., 2003). Pelowski, Frissell, Cabral

and Yu (2005) found that the immediacy of

synchronous tools to facilitate class communications

afforded a number of benefits to students that

asynchronous communication tools did not achieve.

3.12 Virtual Worlds

A virtual world is a simulated environment through

which users can interact individually or with others

to use and create objects. Virtual worlds include

multi-user virtual environments (MUVEs), and

eSimulations, which are ideal for classroom teaching

situations.

MUVEs are “environments that support learning

activities such as experimentation, exploration, task

selection, creation, and dynamic feedback ... [and]

...provides opportunities for social interaction,

collaboration, an increased sense of shared presence,

AREVIEWOFE-LEARNINGTECHNOLOGIES-OpportunitiesforTeachingandLearning

partially dissolved social boundaries, and lowered

social anxiety” (Jarmon et al., 2009, p. 170). With a

MUVE there is no predetermined narrative. MUVE

designers have the freedom to define and create the

environment most suitable for their teaching context

(Warburton, 2009) and use it as an alternative model

of education (Twining, 2009). Second Life (SL) is

by far the most popular MUVE and applications can

be found in many disciplines and educational

contexts (Twining, 2009); (Warburton, 2009);

(Wheeler, 2009). In SL the user is represented by an

avatar, a graphical image that represents a person,

and can interact with other avatars in a 3-D virtual

environment. SL offers an alternative space where

learners can gain experiences that may not be

possible in the real world. These include

hypothetical or imaginary experiences or those

involving large risk (Boon and Sinclair, 2009);

(Jarmon et al., 2009); or where these experiences

would be too expensive to produce in real life

(Wheeler, 2009). Twining (2009, p. 498) suggests

that they are also “spaces which encourage

playfulness and testing of boundaries”.

There are some concerns about the MUVE as a

learning environment. “The omnipresent artificiality

of identity within these spaces and the concomitant

challenges to frameworks of trust and truth may

leave some students feelings distracted, isolated, or

even disconnected” (Boon and Sinclair, 2009, p.

108). This finding is supported in the literature

(Omale et al., 2009); (Warburton, 2009). Another

concern is that educators are ill prepared to take

advantage of these new technologies (Twining,

2009), which could seriously complicate

student/teacher interactions.

ESimulations are computer-based simulations

that are delivered via a computer network and,

increasingly, from mobile screens. The major

benefits of eSimulations are that they are interactive,

stimulating and enjoyable for learners and they

provide single-user or team interaction in realistic or

real-world scenarios where trial-and-error learning

in a risk-free setting is possible (Cybulski, 2007).

Many other attempts have been made to provide

simulated learning experiences to students including:

• The use of live broadcasts using a small-scale,

satellite-based expedition transmission package into

remote areas which brought a “live experience” back

to students on campus (Robert and Lenz, 2009).

• The creation of a virtual learning environment on

CD that emulated a fire investigation activities

scenario (Davies and Dalgarno, 2009).

• The utilization of a fictitious telecommunications

organisation (website) as a context for engaging

students in professional practice (Goold et al., 2006).

3.13 Weblogs and Microblogs

A blog (weblog) is a web page where the owner

writes personal commentary, or opinions, to which

readers have the ability to leave comments (Duffy,

2008). The owner of the blog directs its content with

dated postings of items in reverse chronological

order containing text and images. The blog may

incorporate a number of features such as links,

taglines, permanent links, blogrolls and archives

(Farmer and Bartlett-Bragg, 2005). A blog owner

requires motivation to post regularly placing

increased pressure on educators using the

technology. However various applications such as

RAMBLE and Google’s Blogger Mobile enable

bloggers to easily send messages and images directly

to their blog from their mobile phones (Fisher and

Baird, 2006 - 2007).

Blogs can provide a shareable student writing

space or be used as a mechanism to record a

student’s progress. They can also be used as a digital

display of a student’s work and achievements

(Duffy, 2008). Blogs have the potential to improve

the correctness, completeness and innovations of

achievements by students (Chu et al., 2009). Hou,

Chang and Sung (2009) suggest that blogs can also

be a way for teachers to share information and

experience, though in their study the use of the blog

for knowledge construction was limited.

Buffington’s (2008) experience with implementing

blogs in a university however were mixed.

Blogging “small nuggets of knowledge”,

typically in postings of 140 characters or less, which

can be read on the web or on mobile devices is

known as microblogging (Skiba, 2008). Examples

include Twitter (where each posting is known as a

tweet), Jaiku, Tumblr and Pownce. Yammer is a

“private” microblogging tool. It restricts user access

to a community by an email domain name.

Instructional uses include as a tool for effective

professional development and collaboration

(Grosseck and Holotescu, 2008); making

announcements as well as collaborative story writing

(Skiba, 2008); and enhancing the social, cognitive

and teacher presence in an online course (Dunlap

and Lowenthal, 2009). Roth and McCully (2010)

argue that while these type of social media tools may

facilitate student collaboration they need to be

simple and purposeful.

CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

3.14 Wikis

Wikis are a collection of web pages designed to

allow multiple authors to create, edit and delete

content at any time and from anywhere

(Cunningham, 2005) and they are particularly

suitable for group work in education. Content is built

collaboratively with many users being able to

structure the content, create links and track a history

of contributions (O'Leary, 2008). The pages within

the wiki can be interconnected and organised as

necessary as there is no predetermined structure

(Duffy, 2008). The most well known wiki is the

online encyclopedia Wikipedia. As of 2012,

Wikipedia had over 19 million articles from 85,000

active contributors in more than 270 languages.

Application of wikis in the academic context

include fostering learning in students (Ruth and

Houghton, 2009); the collaborative writing of a

textbook by faculty and students (Ravid et al.,

2008); as a tool to understand artworks (Buffington,

2008); and to improve report writing amongst

students (Neumann and Hood, 2009). Hernandez-

Ramos (2004) suggests that wikis promote the art of

reflective writing due to the public nature of these

tools. However some students experience feelings of

uncertainty if they are not accustomed to writing and

publishing their ideas to such a wide audience

(Hernandez-Ramos, 2004). Neumann and Hood

(2009) suggest that using a wiki can improve student

engagement with content but they found no evidence

that students’ performance was also enhanced.

However Cole (2009) did not find an increase in

student engagement amongst her students though

this may have been due to an unattractive course

design.

The accuracy, relevance and verifiability of the

content of wikis can be questionable (Dawley,

2007); (Giles 2005). However O’Leary (2008)

argues that they can be as accurate as traditionally

published sources but acknowledges that a lack of

peer reviewing does result in a lack of quality

assurance and that authors can introduce bias.

4 DISCUSSION: AFFORDANCES

OF E-TECHNOLOGIES

The rate at which new e-technologies are emerging

is rapid and hence any list which attempts to capture

them will soon be out of date. For example since

undertaking this review the researchers have

encountered the Bliki, a combination of a blog and a

wiki (Huang and Yang, 2009), and the SNAG, a

suite of mobile phone and internet games to

facilitate networking between group members. Other

tools such as Google Wave, a combination of

synchronous and asynchronous communication,

showed much promise (Feldstein, 2009). In 2010

active development of Google Wave was

discontinued with a full shut down of the product in

April 2012. However, the list of categories of e-

technologies is less likely to change but rather

specific entries will be extended by new innovations.

The technologies which are most likely to impact

teaching and learning in higher education in the

future are listed in the latest Horizon Report

(Johnson et al., 2010). The report suggests that cloud

computing and collaborative environments will have

a significant impact on teaching and learning over

the next 12 months, however with recent reports of

‘clouds’ being hacked such as Sony’s Playstation

network in April 2011, such technologies are not

immune from misuse and negative consequences.

The report suggests that in the medium term (two to

three years), game-based learning and mobile

devices will be key drivers in pedagogical

developments. In four to five years, the report

suggests that augmented reality and flexible

computer displays will be used, even though in

reality these may only be adopted within this time

frame by a few in the mainstream; those with

substantial funds and infrastructure to support them.

To put this discussion in context, it is important

to consider the key trends that are driving the

adoption of technology in the classroom (Johnson et

al., 2010):

• Technology as a means for empowering students,

a communication and socializing tool that is

ubiquitous and transparent.

• Technology is continuing to impact workplaces

and elsewhere.

• The value placed on innovation and creativity is

increasing.

• There is a move to just-in-time, less formal,

modes of learning.

• Perceptions of the learning environment are

changing.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The popularity of emerging digital technology

presents new opportunities and challenges for

educators. Farnan, Paro, Higa, Edelson and Arora

(2008) argue that educators need to familiarize

AREVIEWOFE-LEARNINGTECHNOLOGIES-OpportunitiesforTeachingandLearning

themselves with the advances in digital media, not

only to take advantage of the educational

opportunities they provide, but also to encourage

safe practices and professional behavior by students

using these technologies. Armatas, Holt and Rice

(2005) warn however that a constant challenge will

be “to integrate the possibilities of the emergent

[technology] with ongoing commitments to the

established corporate technologies” (p. 34).

As part of ongoing research, a future project will

seek to expand the number of e-technologies

reviewed and provide dissemination of best practice

and exemplars via the web as well as providing the

mechanism for ongoing updates.

REFERENCES

Anderson, P. and Blackwood, A., 2004. ‘Mobile and PDA

Technologies and Their Future Use in Education’,

JISC Technology and Standards Watch, retrieved 15

June 2010, http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/services/

techwatch/reports/horizonscanning/hs0403.aspx>

Angus, S. D. and Watson, J., 2009. ‘Does Regular Online

Testing Enhance Student Learning in the Numerical

Sciences? Robust Evidence from a Large Data Set’,

British Journal of Educational Technology (40:2), pp.

255 - 272.

Armatas, C., D. Holt, et al., (2005). ‘Balancing the

possibilities for mobile technologies in higher

education’. Ascilite 2005: Balance, Fidelity, Mobility -

Maintaining the momentum?, Brisbane, Australia.

Atkinson, K., Fluker, G., Ngo, L., Dracup, M. and

McCormick, P., 2009. ‘Introducing a Learning

Repository Using a Blended Professional

Development Approach’, ASCILITE 2009 : Same

places, different spaces, Auckland, New Zealand, in

Proceedings of the 26th ASCILITE conference,

Australian Society for Computers in Learning in

Tertiary Education, pp. 35 - 39.

Bliesener, T., 2006. ‘Training Synchronous Collaborative

E-Learning’, International Journal on E-Learning

(5:2), pp. 185 - 196.

Blignaut, S. and Nagel, L., 2009. ‘Cousins Virtual Jane

and Virtual Joe, Extraordinary Virtual Helpers’,

Computers and Education (53:1), pp. 104 - 111.

Boon, S. and Sinclair, C., 2009. ‘A World I Don't Inhabit:

Disquiet and Identity in Second Life and Facebook’,

Educational Media International (46:2), pp. 99 - 110.

Brandes, G. M. and Boskie, N., 2008. ‘EPortfolios: From

Description to Analysis’, The International Review of

Research in Open and Distance Learning (9:2), pp.1 -

17.

Bratengeyer, E., 2008. ‘The Advent of Eportfolios in

Europe’, International Journal of Emerging

Technologies in Learning (3:1), pp. 4 - 5.

Brewer, E. W., De Jonge, J. O. and Stout, V. J., (2001).

Moving to Online: making the transition from

traditional instructions and communication strategies.

Corwin Press, Inc. CA.

Buffington, M. L., 2008. ‘Creating and Consuming Web

2.0 in Art Education’, Computers in Schools (25:3 -

4), pp. 303 - 313.

Bugeja, M. J., 2006. ‘Facing the Facebook’, The Chronicle

of Higher Education (52:21), p. C1.

Butakov, S. and Scherbinin, V., 2009. ‘The Toolbox for

Local and Global Plagiarism Detection’, Computers

and Education (52:4), pp. 781 - 788.

Buzzetto-More, N., 2010. ‘Assessing the Efficacy and

Effectiveness of an E-Portfolio Used for Summative

Assessment’, Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning

and Learning Objects (6), pp. 61 - 85.

Buzzetto-More, N. and Ukoha, O., 2009. ‘The Efficacy of

a Web-Based Instruction and Remediation Program on

Student Learning’, Issues in Informing Science and

Information Technology (6), pp. 285 - 298.

Cavus, N. and Ibrahim, D., 2009. ‘M-Learning: An

Experience in Using Sms to Support Learning New

English Language Words’, British Journal of

Educational Technology (40:1), pp. 78 - 91.

Chao, C., Wilhelm, W. J. and Neureuther, B. D., 2009. ‘A

Study of Electronic Detection and Pedagogical

Approaches for Reducing Plagiarism’, The Delta Pi

Epsilon Journal (51:1), pp. 31 - 42.

Chen, Y., Chen, N. and Tsai, C., 2009. ‘The Use of Online

Synchronous Discussion for Web-Based Professional

Development for Teachers’, Computers and Education

(53:4), pp. 1155 - 1166.

Cheng, G. and Chau, J., 2009. ‘Digital Video for Fostering

Self-Reflection in an Eportfolio Environment’,

Learning, Media and Technology (34:4), pp.337 - 350.

Chickering, A. W. and Gamson, Z., 1987. ‘Seven

Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate

Education’, American Association for Higher

Education Bulletin, March.

Chu, H., Hwang, G., Tsai, C. and Chen, N., 2009. ‘An

Innovative Approach for Promoting Information

Exchanges and Sharing in a Web 2.0-Based Learning

Environment’, Interactive Learning Environments

(17:4), pp. 311 - 323.

Cole, M., 2009. ‘Using Wiki Technology to Support

Student Engagement: Lessons from the Trenches’,

Computers and Education (52:1), pp. 141 - 146.

Conole, G. and Culver, J., 2009. ‘Cloudworks: Social

Networking for Learning Design’, Australasian

Journal of Educational Technology (25:5), pp. 763 -

782.

Costagliola, G., Fuccella, V., Giordano, M. and Polese, G.,

2009. ‘Monitoring Online Tests through Data

Visualization’, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and

Data Engineering (21:6), June 2009, pp. 773 - 784.

Cunningham, W., 2005. ‘Wiki Getting Started Faq’,

retrieved 17 Feb 2010, <http://c2.com/cgi/

wiki?WikiGettingStartedFaq>

Cybulski, J., 2007. ‘Designing Professional Work

Experience in E-Simulations’, retrieved 12 February

2010, <http://www.deakin.edu.au/itl/documents/j-

cybulski-abstract.doc>

CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

Dahl, S., 2007. ‘Turnitin: The Student Perspective on

Using Plagiarism Detection Software’, Active

Learning in Higher Education (8:2), pp. 173 - 191.

Davies, A. and Dalgarno, B., 2009. ‘Learning Fire

Investigation the Clean Way: The Virtual Experience’,

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology

(25:1), pp. 1 - 13.

Dawley, L., 2007. The Tools for Successful Online

Teaching. Hershey: Information Science Publishing.

De Fazio, T., Gilding, A. and Zorzenon, G., 2000.

‘Student Learning Support in an Online Learning

Environment’, ASCILITE 2000: Learning to Choose,

Choosing to Learn, Coffs Habour, Australia.

De Villiers, R., 2010. ‘Academic Use of a Group on

Facebook’, in Proceedings of InSITE Conference,

Informing Science Press, Bari and Cassino, Italy, pp.

173-190.

Dorninger, C. and Schrack, C., 2008. ‘Future Learning

Strategy and Eportfolios in Education’, International

Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (3:1),

pp. 11 - 14.

Duffy, P., 2008. ‘Engaging the Youtube Google-Eyed

Generation: Strategies for Using Web 2.0 in Teaching

and Learning’, The Electronic Journal of e-Learning

(6:2), pp. 119 - 130.

Dunlap, J. C. and Lowenthal, P. R., 2009. ‘Tweeting the

Night Away: Using Twitter to Enhance Social

Presence’, Journal of Information Systems Education

(20:2), pp. 129 - 135.

Eberhardt, D. M., 2007. ‘Facing up to Facebook’, About

Campus (12:4), pp. 18 - 26.

EDUCAUSE., 2008. ‘7 Things You Should Know About

Google Apps’, retrieved 19 March 2008,

<http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7035.pdf>.

Farmer, J. and Bartlett-Bragg, A., 2005. ‘Blogs @

Anywhere: High Fidelity Online Communication’,

Balance, Fidelity, Mobility: Maintaining the

Momentum?, Brisbane, Australia: ASCILITE, pp. 197

- 202.

Farnan, J. M., Paro, J. A. M., Higa, J., Edelson, J. and

Arora, V. M., 2008. ‘The Youtube Generation:

Implications for Medical Professionalism’,

Perspectives in Biology and Medicine (51:4), pp. 517 -

524.

Feldstein, M., 2009. ‘What Intrigues Me About Google

Wave’, retrieved 13 August 2010,

<http://mfeldstein.com/what-intrigues-me-about-

google-wave/>.

Fisher, M. and Baird, D. E., 2006 - 2007. ‘Making

Mlearning Work: Utilizing Mobile Technology for

Active Exploration, Collaboration, Assessment and

Reflection in Higer Education’, Journal of

Educational Technology Systems (35:1), pp. 3 - 30.

Fitch, D., Reed, B. G., Peet, M. and Tolman, R., 2008.

‘The Use of Eportfolios in Evaluating the Curriculum

and Student Learning’, Journal of Social Work

Education (44:3), Fall 2008, pp. 37 - 54.

Fluck, A., Pullen, D. and Harper, C., 2009. ‘Case Study of

a Computer Based Examination System’, Australasian

Journal of Educational Technology (25:4), pp. 509 -

523.

Foulger, T. S., Ewbank, A. D., Kay, A., Popp, S. O. and

Carter, H. L., 2009. ‘Moral Spaces in Myspace:

Preservice Teachers' Perspectives About Ethical Issues

in Social Networking’, Journal of Research on

Technology in Education (42:1), pp. 1 - 28.

Gerhard, J. and Mayr, P., (2002). ‘Competing in the E-

Learning Environment - Strategies for Universities’, in

Proceedings of 35th Hawaii International Conference

on System Sciences, Hawaii, IEEE Computer Society.

Giles, J., 2005. ‘Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to

Head’, Nature (438:December), pp. 900-901, retrieved

13 August 2010, <http://www.nature.com/

nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html>.

Glotzbach, R. J., Mohler, J. L. and Radwan, J. E., 2009.

‘Really Simple Syndication (RSS): An Educational

Approach’, Journal of Interactive Media in Education

(3), p. 13.

Godwin, P., 2007. ‘Information Literacy Meets Web 2.0:

How the New Tools Affect Our Own Training and

Our Teaching’, New Review of Information

Networking (13:2), pp. 101 - 112.

Goold, A., Augar, N. and Farmer, J., 2006. ‘Learning in

Virtual Teams: Exploring the Student Experience’,

Journal of Information Technology Education (5), pp.

477 - 490

Goold, A. and Coldwell, J., 2005. ‘Teaching Ethics in a

Virtual Classroom’, in Proceedings of The 10th

Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in

Computer Science Education, J. Cunha, W.

Fleischman, V. Proulx and J. Lourenco (eds.), Monte

de Caparica, Portugal: ACM, pp. 232 - 236.

Grosseck, G. and Holotescu, C., 2008. ‘Can We Use

Twitter for Educational Activities’? , in Proceedings

of the 4th International Scientific Conference:

eLearning and Software for Education. Bucharest:

eLearning and Software for Education (eLSE).

Hamilton, A., 2010. ‘Diffusion of Innovation Web 2.0’,

OTNow (12:1), pp. 18-21.

Harrison, D., Aschermann, J. and Buckley, C., 2003.

‘Breaking Down the Barriers: E-Learning as a Vehicle

for Facilitating Personal and Professional

Development among Pre-Service Teachers in Wales

and Missouri’, in Proceedings of Society for

Information Technology and Teacher Education

International Conference, C. Crawford, N. Davis, J.

Price, R. Weber and D.A. Willis (eds.), Albuquerque,

USA: AACE, pp. 2986 - 2987.

Heinrich, E., Bhattacharya, M. and Rayudu, R., 2007.

‘Preparation for Lifelong Learning Using Eportfolios’,

European Journal of Engineering Education (32:6),

December 2007, pp. 653 - 663.

Herman, C. and Kirkup, G., 2008. ‘Learners in Transition:

The Use of Eportfolios for Women Returners to

Science’, Engineering and Technology, Innovations in

Education and Teaching International (45:1), pp.67 -

76.

Hernandez-Ramos, P., 2004. ‘Web Logs and Online

Discussions as Tools to Promote Reflective Practice’,

AREVIEWOFE-LEARNINGTECHNOLOGIES-OpportunitiesforTeachingandLearning

The Journal of Interactive Online Learning (3:1), pp.

1 - 16.

Hew, K. F., 2009. ‘Use of Audio Podcast in K-12 and

Higher Education: A Review of Research Topics and

Methodologies’, Educational Technology Research

and Development (57:3), pp. 333 - 357.

Heymann, P., Koutrika, G. and Garcia-Molina, H., 2008.

‘Can Social Bookmarking Improve Web Search’?, in

Proceedings of The International Conference on Web

Search and Web Data Mining. California, USA:

ACM, pp. 195 - 206.

Hou, H., Chang, K. and Sung, Y., 2009. ‘Using Blogs as a

Professional Development Tool for Teachers: Analysis

of Interaction Behavioral Patterns’, Interactive

Learning Environments (17:4), pp. 325 - 340.

Huang, S. and Yang, C., 2009. ‘Designing a Semantic

Bliki System to Support Different Types of

Knowledge and Adaptive Learning’, Computers and

Education (53:3), pp. 701 - 712.

Jarmon, L., Traphagan, T., Mayrath, M. and Trivedi, A.,

2009. ‘Virtual World Teaching, Experiential Learning,

and Assessment: An Interdisciplinary Communication

Course in Second Life’, Computers and Education

(53:1), pp. 169 - 182.

Johnson, K. and Lillis, C., 2010. ‘Clickers in the

Laboratory: Student Thoughts and Views’,

Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge,

and Management (5), pp. 139-151.

Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R. and Stone, S., 2010.

The 2010 Horizon Report, The New Media

Consortium., Austin, Texas.

Kardos, R. L., Cook, J. M., Butson, R. J. and Kardos, T.

B., 2009. ‘The Development of an Eportfolio for Life-

Long Reflective Learning and Auditable Professional

Certification’, European Journal of Dental Education

(13:3), pp. 135 - 141.

Klisc, C., McGill, T. and Hobbs, V., 2009. ‘The Effect of

Assessment on the Outcomes of Asynchrnous Online

Discussion as Perceived by Instructors’, Australasian

Journal of Educational Technology (25:5), pp. 666 -

682.

Koch, A., 2010. ‘The E-Portfolio as an Enabler for Work-

Integrated Learning’, in Proceedings of InSITE

Conference, Informing Science Press, Bari and

Cassino, Italy, pp. 719-729.

Koehler, M. and Mishra, P., 2009.’ What Is Technological

Pedagogical Content Knowledge?’, Contemporary

Issues in Technology and Teacher Education (9:1), pp.

60 - 70.

Kolek, E. A. and Saunders, D., 2008. ‘Online Disclosure:

An Empirical Examination of Undergraduate

Facebook Profiles’, National Association of Student

Personnel Administrators Journal (NASPA) (45:1), pp.

1 - 25.

Lazzari, M., 2009. ‘Creative Use of Podcasting in Higher

Education and Its Effect on Competitive Agency’,

Computers and Education (52:1), pp. 27 - 34.

Lee, M. J. W., Miller, C. and Newnham, L., 2009.

‘Podcasting Syndication Services and University

Students: Why Don't They Subscribe?’, The Internet

and Higher Education (12:1), pp. 53 - 59.

Lomas, C. P., 2005. ‘7 Things You Should Know About

Social Bookmarking’, EDUCAUSE, retrieved 27 July

2010, <http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ ELI7001

.pdf>.

Lopez-Fernandez, O. and Rodriguez-Illera, J. L., 2009.

‘Investigating University Students' Adaptation to a

Digital Learner Course Portfolio’, Computers and

Education (52:3), pp. 608 - 616.

Marathe, S. S., 2010. ‘Stimulating Everyday Creativity:

Harnessing the Potential of Customizable Uis’, in

Proceedings of the 28th international conference

extended abstracts on Human factors in computing

systems Atlanta, Georgia, USA: ACM, pp. 3559 -

3564.

Mazza, R. and Dimitrova, V., 2004. ‘Visualising Student

Tracking Data to Support Instructors in Web-Based

Distance Education’, in Proceedings of the 13th

international World Wide Web conference on

Alternate track papers and posters. New York, USA:

ACM, pp. 154 - 161.

McKinney, D., Dyck, J. L. and Luber, E. S., 2009. ‘Itunes

University and the Classroom: Can Podcasts Replace

Professors?’, Computers and Education (52:3), pp.

617 - 623.

Middleton, A., 2009. ‘Beyond Podcasting: Creative

Approaches to Designing Educational Audio’, ALT-J

(17:2), pp. 143 - 155.

Neumann, D. L. and Hood, M., 2009. ‘The Effects of

Using a Wiki on Student Engagement and Learning of

Report Writing Skills in a University Statistics

Course’, Australasian Journal of Educational

Technology (25:3), pp. 382 - 398.

O'Leary, D. E., 2008. ‘Wikis: 'from Each According to His

Knowledge'’, Computer (41:2), pp. 34 - 41.

Omale, N., Hung, W., Luetkehans, L. and Cooke-

Plagwitz, J., 2009. ‘Learning in 3-D Multiuser Virtual

Environments: Exploring the Use of Unique 3-D

Attributes for Online Problem-Based Learning’,

British Journal of Educational Technology (40:3), pp.

480 - 495.

Orton-Johnson, K., 2009. ‘I've Stuck to the Path I'm

Afraid: Exploring Student Non-Use of Blended

Learning’, British Journal of Educational Technology

(40:5), pp. 837 - 847.

Pelowski, S., Frissell, L., Cabral, K. and Yu, T., 2005. ‘So

Far but yet So Close: Student Chat Room Immediacy,

Learning, and Performance in an Online Course’,

Journal of Interactive Learning Research (16:4), pp.

395 - 407.

Pena-Shaff, J., Altman, W. and Stephenson, H., 2005.

‘Asynchronous Online Discussions as a Tool for

Learning: Students' Attitudes, Expectations and

Perceptions’, Journal of Interactive Learning

Research (16:4), pp. 409 - 430.

Ravid, G., Kalman, Y. M. and Rafaeli, S., 2008.

‘Wikibooks in Higher Education: Empowerment

through Online Distributed Collaboration’, Computers

in Human Behavior (24:5), pp. 1913 - 1928.

CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

Robert, K. and Lenz, A., 2009. ‘Cowboys with Cameras:

An Interactive Expedition’, British Journal of

Educational Technology (40:1), pp. 119 - 134.

Romiszowski, A. J., (2004). ‘How’s the E-learning Baby?

Factors Leading to Success or Failure of an

Educational Technology Innovation’, Educational

Technology 44(1), pp. 5 - 27.

Roth, B. and McCully, M., 2010. ‘Tweeting and Friending

in the Graduate Classroom’, in Proceedings of InSITE

Conference, Informing Science Press, Bari and

Cassino, Italy, pp. 421 - 429.

Ruth, A. and Houghton, L., 2009. ‘The Wiki Way of

Learning’, Australasian Journal of Educational

Technology (25:2), pp. 135 - 152.

Rutter, M., 2009. ‘Messenger in the Barn: Networking in a

Learning Environment’, ALT-J (17:1), pp. 33 - 47.

Saldaña, J., 2009. The Coding Manual for Qualitative

Researchers. London: SAGE Publications.

Samarawickrema, G., 2007.’ Piloting Social Networking

and Web 2.0 Software at Deakin University’, ICT:

providing choices for learners and learning, in

Proceeding s of Australasian Society for Computers in

Learning in Tertiary Education Conference, R. Oliver,

D. Tan, A. Kit and C. Cheers (eds.), Singapore:

ASCILITE, pp. 904 - 908

Sheridan, J., Alany, R. and Brake, D., 2005. ‘Pharmacy

Students' Views and Experiences of Turnitin - an

Online Tool for Detecting Academic Dishonesty’,

Pharmacy Education (5:3/4), pp. 241 - 250.

Skiba, D. J., 2008. ‘Nursing Education 2.0: Twitter and

Tweets - Can You Post a Nugget of Knowledge in 140

Characters or Less?’, Nursing Education Perspectives

(29:2), pp. 110 - 112.

Southavilay, V., Yacef, K. and Calvo, R. A., 2009.

‘Writeproc: A Framework for Exploring Collaborative

Writing Processes’, Fourteenth Australasian

Document Computing Symposium, J. Kay, P. Thomas

and A. Trotman (eds.), Sydney, Australia: School of

Information Technologies, University of Sydney, pp.

129 - 136.

Sutton-Brady, C., Scott, K. M., Taylor, L., Carabetta, G.

and Clark, S., 2009. ‘The Value of Using Short-

Format Podcasts to Enhance Learning and Teaching’,

ALT-J (17:3), pp. 219 - 232.

Swan, G., 2009. ‘Examining Barriers in Faculty Adoption

of an E-Portfolio System’, Australasian Journal of

Educational Technology (25:5), pp. 627 - 644.

Tavangarian, D., Leypold, M., Nölting, K., Röser, M. and

Voigt D., (2004). ‘Is e-Learning the Solution for

Individual Learning?’ University of Rostock, Germany

Electronic Journal of e-Learning (2:2), pp. 273-280.

Thinyane, H., 2010. ‘Are Digital Natives a World-Wide

Phenomenon? An Investigation into South African

First Year Students’ Use and Experience with

Technology’, Computers and Education (55:1), pp.

406 - 414

Twining, P., 2009. ‘Exploring the Educational Potential of

Virtual Worlds - Some Reflections from the Spp’,

British Journal of Educational Technology (40:3), pp.

496 - 514.

Wang, C. and Reeves, T. C., 2007. ‘Synchronous Online

Learning Experiences: The Perspectives of

International Students from Taiwan’, Educational

Media International (44:4), pp. 339 - 356.

Warburton, S., 2009. ‘Second Life in Higher Education:

Assessing the Potential for and the Barriers to

Deploying Virtual Worlds in Learning and Teaching’,

British Journal of Educational Technology (40:3), pp.

414 - 426.

Weaver, A. and Morrison, B., 2008. ‘Social Networking’,

Computer (41:2), pp. 97 – 100.

Wheeler, M., 2009. ‘Developing the Media Zoo in Second

Life, British Journal of Educational Technology

(40:3), pp. 427 - 443.

AREVIEWOFE-LEARNINGTECHNOLOGIES-OpportunitiesforTeachingandLearning