Indexing
All Issues
Submission
Author Guidelines
Reviewers
Editorial Members
Publication Fee
Vol.2 , No. 1, Publication Date: May 21, 2015, Page: 1-18
. and to examine the learner interpersonal locus of control. The participants were 44 medical education students, who were enrolled in online computer courses at Taif University. The participants have been placed into five groups, each group has seven members with one leader. During the 10 week semester, the students had online reading assignments, participated in discussion activities, created technology-based lesson plans, worked on small group projects. The final results indicate that there is a significant difference between the locus of control and the self-assessment, participation interaction assessment, and Social network group’s interaction. Consequently the locus of control effects of Social network group’s interaction variable.&picture=http://www.aascit.org/aascit/decorators/img/journal/914.jpg)
| [1] | Suzan Atia Mostafa Alsaid, Medical Education department Faculty of Medicine, Taif University, Taif, KSA. |
The social networking is becoming more popular. The computer supported social communication generally aims to achieve a higher-level of thinking skills, communication abilities, and the shared improvement of knowledge within a field of performance with others. The rapid growth has made it difficult for developing software of cooperative networking in medical education with an accurately assessment tools of social networking cooperation indicators. The locus of control gets a major interpersonal aspect in assessing cooperative social networking. Therefore, the study aims to develop communication software tools with assessment tools for cooperation and it investigates the relationship commitment of locus of control serves as an interpersonal factor. The purpose of the study is to develop communication software tools and The assessment tools to determine the cooperative social network (Locus of control tool, The effectiveness Observation assessment tool, Interactive Evaluation Methods and Tools, observation recording social Network interaction between the groups Observation recording participations performance indicators and Self-assessment tool). and to examine the learner interpersonal locus of control. The participants were 44 medical education students, who were enrolled in online computer courses at Taif University. The participants have been placed into five groups, each group has seven members with one leader. During the 10 week semester, the students had online reading assignments, participated in discussion activities, created technology-based lesson plans, worked on small group projects. The final results indicate that there is a significant difference between the locus of control and the self-assessment, participation interaction assessment, and Social network group’s interaction. Consequently the locus of control effects of Social network group’s interaction variable.
Keywords
Social Networking Communication, Interaction Evaluation, Learning Management System (LMS)- Online Learning, Wiki, Blogs, Discussion Forum
Reference
| [01] | Anderson, C., & Wolff, M. (2010, September). The web is dead. Long live the Internet. Wired, 18(9), 118. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip |
| [02] | Anderson, C., Wolff, M. (2010). The web is dead. Long live the Internet. Wired,18(9), http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip |
| [03] | Artino, A. (2008). Practical guidelines for online instructors. TechTrends, 52(3). |
| [04] | Avouris N.M., Dimitra copoulou A., Komis V., (2003). On analysis of collaborative problem solving: An object-oriented approach, Computers in Human Behavior, 19(2). |
| [05] | Avouris N.M., Dimitracopoulou A., Komis V., Fidas C., (2002). OCAF: An object-oriented model of analysis of collaborative problem solving, G. Stahl (ed), Proceedings CSCL 2002, Colorado, January 2002. |
| [06] | Avouris N.M., Dimitracopoulou A., Komis V.,Fidas C., (2002). OCAF: An object-oriented model of analysis of collaborative problem solving, G. Stahl .Proceedings CSCL 2002. |
| [07] | Brown, J.S., Collins, A., &Duguid, S. (1998).Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 1. |
| [08] | Choi, S.Y., Kang, Y.S. and Lee, H. (2008). The effects of socio-technical enablers on knowledge sharing: an exploratory examination”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 34 No. 5,. |
| [09] | Dawson, S. (2010). Seeing’ the learning community: An exploration of the development of a resource for monitoring online student networking.British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5). |
| [10] | De Laat, M., Lally, V, Lipponen, L. and Simons, P.R.J. (2005). Patterns of interaction in a networked learning community: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/17267 |
| [11] | Ellis, R. (2009). A field guide to learning management systems. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training & Development. Retrieved from http://www.astd.org/NR/rdonlyres/12ECDB99-3B91-403E- |
| [12] | Ellis, R. (2009). A field guide to learning management systems. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training & Development. Retrieved from http://www.astd.org/NR/rdonlyres/12ECDB99-3B91-403E-9B15- |
| [13] | Fazey, D., &Fazey, J. (2001). The potential for autonomy in learning: perceptions of competence, motivation and locus of control in first-year undergraduate students. Studies in higher education, 26(3). |
| [14] | Innes, R.B. (2007). Dialogic communication in collaborative problem solving groups. International Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(1). |
| [15] | Kearsley, G. (2005). Preface. In G. Kearsley (Ed.), Online learning: Personal reflections on the transformation of education (pp. xi-xx). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publication. |
| [16] | Klamma, R., Chatti, M.A., Duval, E., Hummel, H., Hvannberg, E.T., Kravcik, M., Law, E., Naeve, A. and Scott, P. (2007).Social software for life-long learning, Journal of Educational Technology & Society, Vol. 10 No. 3. |
| [17] | Kramarski, B., &Michalsky, T. (2009).Preparing pre-service teachers for self-regulated learning in the context of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 20. Elsevier Ltd. |
| [18] | LaRose, R. (2009). Social cognitive theories of media selection”, in Hartmann, T. (Ed.), Media Choice: A Theoretical and Empirical Overview, Rout ledge, New York, NY. |
| [19] | Lee, M.K.O., Cheung, C.M.K., Lim, K.H. and Sia, C.L. (2006). Understanding customer knowledge sharing in web-based discussion boards: an exploratory study, Internet Research, Vol. 16,No. 3. |
| [20] | Lee, S., & Tsai, C. (2011).Students’ perceptions of collaboration, self-regulated learning, and information seeking in the context of internet-based learning and traditional learning.Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563210003614 |
| [21] | LeRouge, C., Hevner, A.R. and Collins, R.W. (2007). It’s more than just use: an exploration of telemedicine use quality, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 43 No. 4. |
| [22] | Liao, C. and Tsou, C. (2009). User acceptance of computer-mediated communication: the SkypeOut case, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 3. |
| [23] | Lin, H., & Lee, G. (2006). Determinants of success for online communities: An empirical study. Behavior and Information Technology, 25(6). |
| [24] | Martínez, A., Dimitriadis, Y., & De La Fuente, P. (2003).Contributions to analysis of interactions for formative evaluation in CSCL. In Llamas, M., Fernandez, M.J., &Anido, L.E. (Eds.): Computers and education. Towards of lifelong learning society, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. |
| [25] | Moos, D. (2010). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: Too much of a good thing? Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 19(1). |
| [26] | Nekritz, T. (2011). Location, location, location: Where do location-based services fit into your institutions social media mix? Currents, 37(1). http://www.case.org/Publications_and_Products/CURRENTS/CURRENTS_Archive/2011/January_201 |
| [27] | Oblinger, D. G. (2004).The next generation of educational engagement. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 8. |
| [28] | Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2003).Exploring technology-mediated learning from a pedagogical perspective. Interactive Learning Environments, 11(2). |
| [29] | Parames Waran, M. and Whinston, A.B. (2007). Social computing: an overview, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 37. |
| [30] | Peters, K. (2007). m-Learning: Positioning educators for a mobile, connected future. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2). |
| [31] | Pintrich P. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning, Handbook of Self-regulation , San Diago, CA: Academic. |
| [32] | Retalis S., Psaromiligkos, Y., &Siassiakos K.(2005). The ‘why’, ‘what’, ‘when’ and ‘how’ of a summative evaluation method about the learning effectiveness of web-based learning systems, University of Ionian. Athens: 6(2). |
| [33] | Retalis, S., Papasalouros, A., Psaromiligkos, Y.,Siscos, S., &Kargidis, T., (2006). Towards Networked Learning Analytics – A concept and a tool, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Networked Learning 2006, Lancaster UK. |
| [34] | Robison, R. (2007). Google: A chronology of innovations, acquisitions, and growth. Journal of Library Administration, 46. |
| [35] | Schwartz, D.L. (1995). The emergence of abstract dyad representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 321-354. |
| [36] | Simonson, M. (2011). Distance education yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Instructional technology: Past, present, and future , Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited. |
| [37] | Simonson, M. (2011). Distance education yesterday, today, and tomorrow. In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 79-104). SantaBarbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited. |
| [38] | Sloan Consortium (2011).Going the distance: Online education in the United States, 2011. http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/going_distance_2011 |
| [39] | Sun, J., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2). |
| [40] | Sun, J., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2). |
| [41] | Szuchman, M. (2005). Technology as enhancement tool for professionalization and cognition: The effect of ultra-portability and meta-cognition strategies. Integrating technology in higher education. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. |
| [42] | Szuchman, M. (2005). Technology as enhancement tool for professionalization and cognition: The effect of ultra-portability and meta-cognition strategies. Integrating technology in higher education. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. |
| [43] | TELL Project. (2005). Introducing a Framework for the Evaluation of Network Supported Collaborative Learning, WP1 Deliverable, Project number: eLearning Initiative, EU: European Commission Downloadable |
| [44] | Volery, T. (2001). Online education: An exploratory study into success factors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(1). |
| [45] | Volery, T. (2001). Online education: An exploratory study into success factors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(1). |
| [46] | Vrasidas, C. (2011). Human-computer interaction and usability of online learning environments. In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present. |
| [47] | Zacharis, N. Z. (2011). The effect of learning style on preference for web-based courses and learning outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5). |
