Aspects to Be Considered when Implementing Technology-Enhanced Learning Approaches: A Literature Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Research Method
2.1. Definition of Technology-Enhanced Learning
2.2. Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
- The publication has to have a relation to the field of technology-enhanced learning as it is defined for the purpose of this study.
- The purpose of the publication has to address one or more aspects that could possibly be considered when implementing technology-enhanced learning approaches. Publications that introduce new approaches in the field of technology-enhanced learning without explicitly addressing one or more aspects are not taken into account.
- The publication has to be published between 2009 and 2014 (request date November 2013).
- The publication has to be downloadable in full-text at our home university.
- The publication has to be in English.
2.3. Data Sources and Search Strategies
2.4. Data Analysis
- (1)
- Collecting: Based on the publications’ research question and purpose, the terms for aspects that could possibly be considered when implementing approaches to TEL as they are used in the publications are collected.
- (2)
- Ordering: The collected original terms are ordered in a way based on similarity.
- (3)
- Defining: Hypernyms for similar terms are defined.
- (4)
- Assigning: The publications are assigned to the defined hypernyms.
- (1)
- Collecting: The analyzed publications studied the following aspects: beliefs, students’ beliefs, teachers’ beliefs, estimated potential for learning contribution, students’ conceptions of technology-enhanced learning, students’ conceptions, students’ expectations, teachers’ expectations, and technological expectancy. In so doing, for instance, these aspects are collected due to following phrases out of the publications (note: some of the listed phrases contain other aspects as well and are therefore not only counted in the category “mind-set and feelings before TEL”):
- (a)
- beliefs: “The aim of this study is to investigate the complexity of past experiences with ICT, pedagogical beliefs, and attitude toward ICT in education that the Net Generation student teachers have about their intention to teach and learn with technology.” [11]
- (b)
- students’ beliefs: “The purpose of the study was to explore possible links between student socioeconomic status (SES), beliefs about information and communication technologies (ICTs), and out-of-school learning resources.” [12]
- (c)
- teachers’ beliefs: “This study was conducted to explore the relationships between teachers’ motivation toward web-based professional development, Internet self-efficacy, and beliefs about web-based learning.” [13]
- (d)
- estimated potential for learning contribution: “This study aims at critically reviewing recently published scientific literature on the use of computer and video games in Health Education (HE) and Physical Education (PE) with a view: (a) to identifying the potential contribution of the incorporation of electronic games as educational tools into HE and PE programs, […]”[14]
- (e)
- conceptions of technology enhanced learning of students: “The present study investigated junior college students’ conceptions of and approaches to learning via online peer assessment (PA) using a phenomenographic approach.” [15]
- (f)
- students’ conceptions: “By interviewing 83 Taiwanese college students with some web-based learning experiences, this study attempted to investigate the students’ conceptions of learning, conceptions of web-based learning, and the differences between these conceptions.” [16]
- (g)
- students’ expectations: “Multiple regression analyses using Mplus 4.21 were carried out to investigate how different facets of students’ expectations and experiences are related to perceived learning achievements and course satisfaction.” [17]
- (h)
- teachers’ expectations: “This exploratory case study examined pre-service teachers’ expectations of and attitudes toward the learning and integrating of ICT into their teaching, and their perceptions of the availability and use of ICT in the Teacher Education Program (TEP) and their placement schools.” [18]
- (i)
- technological expectancy: “Thus, researchers should take into consideration both technological and learning expectancies of students while investigating e-learning acceptance.” [19]
- (2)
- Ordering: The identified terms are ordered in a way based on similarity as follows:
- (a)
- beliefs, students’ beliefs, teachers’ beliefs, estimated potential for learning contribution
- (b)
- conceptions of technology enhanced learning of students, students’ conceptions
- (c)
- students’ expectations, teachers’ expectations, technological expectancy
- (3)
- Defining: The following hypernyms for the ordered terms are defined:
- (a)
- beliefs: beliefs, students’ beliefs, teachers’ beliefs, estimated potential for learning contribution
- (b)
- conceptions: conceptions of technology enhanced learning of students, students’ conceptions
- (c)
- expectations: students’ expectations, teachers’ expectations, technological expectancy
- (4)
- Defining: The following hypernym for the category is defined:
- (a)
- mindset and feelings before TEL: beliefs, conceptions, expectations
- (5)
- Assigning: The analyzed publications are assigned to the new defined hypernym(s).
3. Literature Review
3.1. Acceptance Aspects
3.2. Business Aspects
Journal (analyzed articles/taken articles) | Computers & education (1201/253) | Contemporary educational psychology (149/3) | Early childhood research quarterly (235/1) | Economics of education review (484/1) | Educational research review (87/3) | Interactive learning environments (150/52) | Internet and higher education (167/47) | Journal of research in science teaching (273/3) | Learning and instruction (253/30) | Physical review special topics—physics education research (172/7) | Science & education (713/0) | Teaching and teacher education (683/12) | Count (4567/412) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Category | ||||||||||||||
Acceptance aspects | 31 | - | - | - | - | 4 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | 36 | |
Business aspects | 21 | - | - | - | - | 13 | 2 | - | 1 | - | - | 1 | 38 | |
Cognitive aspects | 22 | 1 | - | - | - | 6 | 1 | - | 9 | - | - | - | 39 | |
Course-related aspects | 6 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 5 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 13 | |
Demographic differences | 21 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 5 | - | - | - | - | - | 27 | |
Influences from prior knowledge and experience | 23 | - | - | - | - | 5 | 8 | - | 1 | - | - | 2 | 39 | |
Instruction aspects | 6 | - | - | - | - | 6 | 3 | 1 | 3 | - | - | 1 | 20 | |
Learners’ learning aspects | 62 | 1 | - | - | 2 | 19 | 10 | - | 7 | 1 | - | - | 102 | |
Learners’ requirements | 16 | - | - | - | - | 4 | 4 | - | - | - | - | - | 24 | |
Learning success | 117 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 20 | 14 | 3 | 17 | 7 | - | 1 | 186 | |
Mind-set & feelings before TEL | 15 | - | - | - | - | - | 2 | - | 1 | - | - | 5 | 23 | |
Mind-set & feelings during TEL | 67 | - | - | - | - | 7 | 26 | - | 1 | - | - | 1 | 102 | |
Motivational aspects | 52 | - | - | - | - | 8 | 10 | - | 2 | - | - | 2 | 74 | |
Requirements on teachers | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3 | 3 | |
Self-regulation aspects | 23 | 1 | - | - | - | 3 | 7 | - | 2 | - | - | - | 36 | |
Social aspects | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | 4 | |
Support processes | 14 | - | - | - | - | 4 | 1 | - | 8 | - | - | - | 27 | |
Teachers’ teaching aspects | 9 | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | 2 | 12 | |
Technical infrastructure aspects | 7 | - | - | - | - | 2 | 6 | - | 2 | - | - | 1 | 18 | |
Technology-related aspects | 20 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 3 | - | 1 | - | - | 5 | 30 | |
Count | 535 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 105 | 108 | 4 | 56 | 8 | 0 | 25 | 853 |
Year of publication | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Count | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Category | ||||||||
Acceptance aspects | 10 | 4 | 7 | 9 | 6 | - | 36 | |
Business aspects | 7 | 10 | 6 | 11 | 4 | - | 38 | |
Cognitive aspects | 8 | 10 | 6 | 8 | 7 | - | 39 | |
Course-related aspects | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | - | 13 | |
Demographic differences | 6 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 7 | - | 27 | |
Influences from prior knowledge and experience | 7 | 5 | 12 | 9 | 6 | - | 39 | |
Instruction aspects | 3 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 4 | - | 20 | |
Learners’ learning aspects | 20 | 25 | 15 | 26 | 15 | 1 | 102 | |
Learners’ requirements | 3 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 4 | - | 24 | |
Learning success | 44 | 40 | 28 | 37 | 37 | - | 186 | |
Mind-set & feelings before TEL | 6 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 8 | - | 23 | |
Mind-set & feelings during TEL | 14 | 21 | 19 | 23 | 25 | - | 102 | |
Motivational aspects | 17 | 17 | 12 | 12 | 16 | - | 74 | |
Requirements on teachers | - | 2 | - | - | 1 | - | 3 | |
Self-regulation aspects | 8 | 9 | 7 | 3 | 9 | - | 36 | |
Social aspects | 2 | 1 | - | 1 | - | - | 4 | |
Support processes | 3 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | - | 27 | |
Teachers' teaching aspects | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | - | 12 | |
Technical infrastructure aspects | 7 | 3 | 5 | 3 | - | - | 18 | |
Technology-related aspects | 5 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 10 | - | 30 | |
Count | 176 | 186 | 150 | 173 | 167 | 1 | 853 |
3.3. Cognitive Aspects
3.4. Course-Related Aspects
3.5. Demographic Differences
3.6. Influences from Prior Knowledge and Experience
3.7. Instruction Aspects
3.8. Learners’ Learning Aspects
3.9. Learners’ Requirements
3.10. Learning Success
3.11. Mindset and Feelings before TEL
3.12. Mindset and Feelings during TEL
3.13. Motivational Aspects
3.14. Requirements on Teachers
3.15. Self-Regulation Aspects
3.16. Social Aspects
3.17. Support Processes
3.18. Teachers’ Teaching Aspects
3.19. Technical Infrastructure Aspects
3.20. Technology-Related Aspects
3.21. Overview of Aspects that Can Be Considered
4. Discussion
Addressed aspects of existing methodologies | Categories of proposed model |
---|---|
Economic aspects [3] | Business aspects |
Technical aspects [3] | Technical infrastructure aspects, technology-related aspects |
Didactical aspects [3] | Teachers’ teaching aspects, course-related aspects, instruction aspects |
Organizational general conditions [3] | Business aspects, technical infrastructure aspects |
Learning outcomes [5] | Learning success |
Social aspects [6] | Social aspects |
Technological aspects [3] | Technical infrastructure aspects, technology-related aspects |
Assessment techniques [7] | Support processes, learning success, course-related aspects |
Teacher training [7] | Requirements on teachers |
Perception [8] | Mindset & feelings during TEL |
Attention [8] | Cognitive aspects |
Cognitive load [8] | Cognitive aspects |
Coding [8] | Cognitive aspects |
Retrieval/transfer [8] | Cognitive aspects, learning success, learners’ learning aspects |
Metacognition [8] | Cognitive aspects, learning success, self-regulation aspects |
Marketing and recruitment [9] | Business aspects, acceptance aspects, motivational aspects |
Financial management [9] | Business aspects |
Quality assurance [9] | Business aspects |
Student retention [9] | Learning success |
Faculty development [9] | Requirements on teachers |
Online course design [9] | Course-related aspects, technical infrastructure aspects |
5. Conclusions and Future Work
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Schweighofer, P.; Grünwald, S.; Ebner, M. Technology Enhanced Learning and the Digital Economy: A Literature Review. Int. J. Innov. Digit. Econ. 2015, 6, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dror, I. Technology Enhanced Learning: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Pragmat. Cogn. 2008, 16, 213–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fink, C.; Gabriel, R.; Gersch, M.; Lehr, C.; Weber, P. Lernservice-Engineering—Eine ökonomische Perspektive auf technologiegestützes Lernen. In Lehrbuch für Lernen und Lehren mit Technologien; Ebner, M., Schön, S., Eds.; Book On Demand: Norderstedt, Germany, 2011; pp. 331–338. [Google Scholar]
- Bullinger, H.-J.; Fähnrich, K.-P.; Meiren, T. Service engineering—Methodical development of new service products. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2003, 85, 275–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cukusic, M.; Alfirevic, N.; Granic, A.; Garaca, Z. e-Learning process management and the e-learning performance: Results of a European empirical study. Comput. Educ. 2010, 55, 554–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q. Designing a web-based constructivist learning environment. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2009, 17, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Granic, A.; Mifsud, C.; Cukusic, M. Design, implementation and validation of a Europe-wide pedagogical framework for e-learning. Comput. Educ. 2009, 53, 1052–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alonso, F.; Manrique, D.; Vines, J.M. A moderate constructivist e-learning instructional model evaluated on computer specialists. Comput. Educ. 2009, 53, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rovai, A.P.; Downey, J.R. Why some distance education programs fail while others succeed in a global environment. Internet High. Educ. 2010, 13, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, W.-H.; Chiou, W.-B.; Kao, H.-Y.; Hu, C.-H.A.; Huang, S.-H. Re-exploring game-assisted learning research: The perspective of learning theoretical bases. Comput. Educ. 2012, 59, 1153–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- So, H.-J.; Choi, H.; Lim, W.Y.; Xiong, Y. Little experience with ICT: Are they really the Net Generation student-teachers? Comput. Educ. 2012, 59, 1234–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vekiri, I. Socioeconomic differences in elementary students’ ICT beliefs and out-of-school experiences. Comput. Educ. 2010, 54, 941–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kao, C.-P.; Wu, Y.-T.; Tsai, C.-C. Elementary school teachers’ motivation toward web-based professional development, and the relationship with Internet self-efficacy and belief about web-based learning. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2011, 27, 406–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papastergiou, M. Exploring the potential of computer and video games for health and physical education: A literature review. Comput. Educ. 2009, 53, 603–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.-F.; Tsai, C.-C. Conceptions of and approaches to learning through online peer assessment. Learn. Instr. 2010, 20, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, C.-C. Conceptions of learning versus conceptions of web-based learning: The differences revealed by college students. Comput. Educ. 2009, 53, 1092–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paechter, M.; Maier, B.; Macher, D. Students’ expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Comput. Educ. 2010, 54, 222–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinovic, D.; Zhang, Z. Situating ICT in the teacher education program: Overcoming challenges, fulfilling expectations. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2012, 28, 461–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.-L. The effects of education compatibility and technological expectancy on e-learning acceptance. Comput. Educ. 2011, 57, 1501–1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bourgonjon, J.; Valcke, M.; Soetaert, R.; de Wever, B.; Schellens, T. Parental acceptance of digital game-based learning. Comput. Educ. 2011, 57, 1434–1444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pynoo, B.; Tondeur, J.; van Braak, J.; Duychk, W.; Sijnave, B.; Duyck, P. Teachers’ acceptance and use of an educational portal. Comput. Educ. 2012, 58, 1308–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chow, M.; Herold, D.K.; Choo, T.-M.; Chan, K. Extending the technology acceptance model to explore the intention to use Second Life for enhancing healthcare education. Comput. Educ. 2012, 59, 1136–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, C.-L.; Dzeng, R.-J. Construction safety training via e-Learning: Learning effectiveness and user satisfaction. Comput. Educ. 2010, 55, 858–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czerniewicz, L.; Brown, C. A study of the relationship between institutional policy, organisational culture and e-learning use in four South African universities. Comput. Educ. 2009, 53, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, T. Rethinking teaching with information and communication technologies (ICTs) in architectural education. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2009, 25, 1132–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Austin, K.A. Multimedia learning: Cognitive individual differences and display design techniques predict transfer learning with multimedia learning modules. Comput. Educ. 2009, 53, 1339–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Annetta, L.A.; Minogue, J.; Holmes, S.Y.; Cheng, M.-T. Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Comput. Educ. 2009, 53, 74–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boucheix, J.-M.; Lowe, R.K. An eye tracking comparison of external pointing cues and internal continuous cues in learning with complex animations. Learn. Instr. 2010, 20, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akyol, Z.; Vaughan, N.; Garrison, D.R. The impact of course duration on the development of a community of inquiry. Interac. Learn. Environ. 2011, 19, 231–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arbaugh, J.B.; Godfrey, M.R.; Johnson, M.; Pollack, B.L.; Niendorf, B.; Wresch, W. Research in online and blended learning in the business disciplines: Key findings and possible future directions. Internet High. Educ. 2009, 12, 71–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klasnja-Milicevic, A.; Vesin, B.; Ivanovic, M.; Budimac, Z. e-Learning personalization based on hybrid recommendation strategy and learning style identification. Comput. Educ. 2011, 56, 885–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ke, F.; Kwak, D. Online learning across ethnicity and age: A study on learning interaction participation, perception, and learning satisfaction. Comput. Educ. 2013, 61, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez-Franco, M.J.; Martínez-López, F.J.; Martín-Velicia, F.A. Exploring the impact of individualism and uncertainty avoidance in web-based electronic learning: An empirical analysis in European higher education. Comput. Educ. 2009, 52, 588–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Gómez, F.; Guardiola, J.; Rodríguez, Ó.M.; Alonso, M.Á.M. Gender differences in e-learning satisfaction. Comput. Educ. 2012, 58, 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, S.I.; Lee, G.; Kim, M. Do students benefit equally from interactive computer simulations regardless of prior knowledge levels? Comput. Educ. 2009, 52, 649–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Margaryan, A.; Littlejohn, A.; Vojt, G. Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Comput. Educ. 2011, 56, 429–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inan, F.A.; Lowther, D.L.; Ross, S.M.; Strahl, D. Pattern of classroom activities during students’ use of computers: Relations between instructional strategies and computer applications. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2010, 26, 540–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borup, J.; West, R.E.; Graham, C.R. Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. Internet High. Educ. 2012, 15, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayrath, M.C.; Traphagan, T.; Heikes, E.J.; Trivedi, A. Instructional design best practices for Second Life: A case study from a college-level English course. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2011, 19, 125–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falloon, G. Young students using iPads: App design and content influences on their learning pathways. Comput. Educ. 2013, 68, 505–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliveira, I.; Tinoca, L.; Pereira, A. Online group work patterns: How to promote a successful collaboration. Comput. Educ. 2011, 57, 1348–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Latham, A.; Crockett, K.; McLean, D.; Edmonds, B. A conversational intelligent tutoring system to automatically predict learning styles. Comput. Educ. 2012, 59, 95–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darab, B.; Montazer, G.A. An eclectic model for assessing e-learning readiness in the Iranian universities. Comput. Educ. 2011, 56, 900–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawlor, B.; Donnelly, R. Using podcasts to support communication skills development: A case study for content format preferences among postgraduate research students. Comput. Educ. 2010, 54, 962–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, F.-Y.; Wu, C.-P. Different identity revelation modes in an online peer-assessment learning environment: Effects on perceptions toward assessors, classroom climate and learning activities. Comput. Educ. 2011, 57, 2167–2177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eow, Y.L.; Ali, W.Z.b.W.; Mahmud, R.b.; Baki, R. Form one students’ engagement with computer games and its effect on their academic achievement in a Malaysian secondary school. Comput. Educ. 2009, 53, 1082–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hong, J.-C.; Tsai, C.-M.; Ho, Y.-J.; Hwang, M.-Y.; Wu, C.-J. A comparative study of the learning effectiveness of a blended and embodied interactive video game for kindergarten students. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2013, 21, 39–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, P.; Hong, J.-S.; Bonk, C.; Lim, G. Effects of group reflection variations in project-based learning integrated in a Web 2.0 learning space. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2011, 19, 333–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prestridge, S. The beliefs behind the teacher that influences their ICT practices. Comput. Educ. 2012, 58, 449–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Terzis, V.; Moridis, C.N.; Economides, A.A. Continuance acceptance of computer based assessment through the integration of user’s expectations and perceptions. Comput. Educ. 2013, 62, 50–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sad, S.N. An attitude scale for smart board use in education: Validity and reliability studies. Comput. Educ. 2012, 58, 900–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dziuban, C.; Moskal, P.; Kramer, L.; Thompson, J. Student satisfaction with online learning in the presence of ambivalence: Looking for the will-o'-the-wisp. Internet High. Educ. 2013, 17, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Regan, K.; Evmenova, A.; Baker, P.; Jerome, M.K.; Spencer, V.; Lawson, H.; Werner, T. Experiences of instructors in online learning environments: Identifying and regulating emotions. Internet High. Educ. 2012, 15, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teo, T. Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Comput. Educ. 2011, 57, 2432–2440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, L.; Tavares, N.J. From Moodle to Facebook: Exploring students’ motivation and experiences in online communities. Comput. Educ. 2013, 68, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chatzoglou, P.D.; Sarigiannidis, L.; Vraimaki, E.; Diamantidis, A. Investigating Greek employees’ intention to use web-based training. Comput. Educ. 2009, 53, 877–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guasch, T.; Alvarez, I.; Espasa, A. University teacher competencies in a virtual teaching/learning environment: Analysis of a teacher training experience. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2010, 26, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Han, I.; Eom, M.; Shin, W.S. Multimedia case-based learning to enhance pre-service teachers’ knowledge integration for teaching with technologies. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2013, 34, 122–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polly, D.; Mims, C.; Shepherd, C.E.; Inan, F. Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher education with preparing tomorrow’s teachers to teach with technology (PT3) grants. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2010, 26, 863–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fulton, L.V.; Ivanitskaya, L.V.; Bastian, N.D.; Erofeev, D.A. Frequent deadlines: Evaluating the effect of learner control on healthcare executives’ performance in online learning. Learn. Instr. 2013, 23, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hodges, C.B.; Murphy, P.F. Sources of self-efficacy beliefs of students in a technology-intensive asynchronous college algebra course. Internet High. Educ. 2009, 12, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, D.; Cho, M.-H.; Tsai, C.-L.; Marra, R. Unpacking online learning experiences: Online learning self-efficacy and learning satisfaction. Internet High. Educ. 2013, 19, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krause, U.-M.; Stark, R.; Mandl, H. The effects of cooperative learning and feedback on e-learning in statistics. Learn. Instr. 2009, 19, 158–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pérez-Mateo, M.; Guitert, M. Which social elements are visible in virtual groups? Addressing the categorization of social expressions. Comput. Educ. 2012, 58, 1234–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, Y.; Ye, J. Exploring the social competence of students with autism spectrum conditions in a collaborative virtual learning environment—The pilot study. Comput. Educ. 2010, 54, 1068–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jara, M.; Mellar, H. Quality enhancement for e-learning courses: The role of student feedback. Comput. Educ. 2010, 54, 709–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Wever, B.; van Keer, H.; Schellens, T.; Valcke, M. Structuring asynchronous discussion groups: Comparing scripting by assigning roles with regulation by cross-age peer tutors. Learn. Instr. 2010, 20, 349–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mäkitalo-Siegl, K.; Fischer, F. Stretching the limits in help-seeking research: Theoretical, methodological, and technological advances. Learn. Instr. 2011, 21, 243–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, N.-S.; Kinshuk; Wei, C.-W.; Liu, C.-C. Effects of matching teaching strategy to thinking style on learner’s quality of reflection in an online learning environment. Comput. Educ. 2011, 56, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsieh, S.-W.; Jang, Y.-R.; Hwang, G.-J.; Chen, N.-S. Effects of teaching and learning styles on students’ reflection levels for ubiquitous learning. Comput. Educ. 2011, 57, 1194–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krauskopf, K.; Zahn, C.; Hesse, F.W. Leveraging the affordances of Youtube: The role of pedagogical knowledge and mental models of technology functions for lesson planning with technology. Comput. Educ. 2012, 58, 1194–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seufert, T.; Schütze, M.; Brünken, R. Memory characteristics and modality in multimedia learning: An aptitude-treatment-interaction study. Learn. Instr. 2009, 19, 28–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehman, B.; D’Mello, S.; Graesser, A. Confusion and complex learning during interactions with computer learning environments. Internet High. Educ. 2012, 15, 184–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, H.-N.; Sedig, K. Characterizing navigation in interactive learning environments. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2009, 17, 53–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ketelhut, D.J.; Schifter, C.C. Teachers and game-based learning: Improving understanding of how to increase efficacy of adoption. Comput. Educ. 2011, 56, 539–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peeraer, J.; van Petegem, P. Measuring integration of information and communication technology in education: An item response modeling approach. Comput. Educ. 2012, 58, 1247–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eynon, R.; Malmberg, L.-E. A typology of young people’s Internet use: Implications for education. Comput. Educ. 2011, 56, 585–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Schweighofer, P.; Ebner, M. Aspects to Be Considered when Implementing Technology-Enhanced Learning Approaches: A Literature Review. Future Internet 2015, 7, 26-49. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi7010026
Schweighofer P, Ebner M. Aspects to Be Considered when Implementing Technology-Enhanced Learning Approaches: A Literature Review. Future Internet. 2015; 7(1):26-49. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi7010026
Chicago/Turabian StyleSchweighofer, Patrick, and Martin Ebner. 2015. "Aspects to Be Considered when Implementing Technology-Enhanced Learning Approaches: A Literature Review" Future Internet 7, no. 1: 26-49. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi7010026