Analysis and Categorization of e-Learning Activities Based On Meaningful Learning Characteristics

Learning is the acquisition of new mental schemata, knowledge, abilities and skills which can be used to solve problems potentially more successfully. The learning process is optimum when it is assisted and personalized. Learning is not a single activity, but should involve many possible activities to make learning become meaningful. Many e-learning applications provide facilities to support teaching and learning activities. One way to identify whether the e-learning system is being used by the learners is through the number of hits that can be obtained from the e-learning system's log data. However, we cannot rely solely to the number of hits in order to determine whether learning had occurred meaningfully. This is due to the fact that meaningful learning should engage five characteristics namely active, constructive, intentional, authentic and cooperative. This paper aims to analyze the e-learning activities that is meaningful to learning. By focusing on the meaningful learning characteristics, we match it to the corresponding Moodle e-learning activities. This analysis discovers the activities that have high impact to meaningful learning, as well as activities that are less meaningful. The high impact activities is given high weights since it become important to meaningful learning, while the low impact has less weight and said to be supportive e-learning activities. The result of this analysis helps us categorize which e-learning activities that are meaningful to learning and guide us to measure the effectiveness of e-learning usage.

• Arda Yunianta
• Norazah Yusof
• Mohd Shahizan Othman
• Dewi Octaviani

• e-learning system
• e-learning activity
• meaningful learning characteristics
• Moodle

[1] M. J. Rosenberg. E-learning, strategies for delivering knowledge in the
digital age. New York: McGraw-Hill. 2001.
[2] D. J. Novak. Learning, creating and using knowledge. New Jersey.
1998.
[3] Stewart, D. P. Technology as a management tool in the Community
College classroom: Challenges and benefits. Journal of Online Learning
and Teaching, 4(4). 2008.
[4] S. Siritongthaworn, D. Krairit, N. Dimmitt,and H. Paul. The study of elearning
technology implementation: A preliminary investigation of
universities in Thailand. Education and Information Technologies,
11(2), 137-160. 2006.
[5] G. Salmon.Flying not flapping: A strategic framework for e-learning and
pedagogical innovation in higher education institutions. ALT-J,
Research in Learning Technology, 13(3), 201-218. 2005.
[6] M. Nycz and E. Cohen. "The basics for understanding e-learning",
Principles of effective online teaching, (p. 1-17) Santa Rosa, CA. 2007.
[7] D. H. Jonassen, J. L. Howland, J. L. Moore and R. M. Marra. Learning
to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall. 2003.
[8] D. P. Ausubel. The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New
York: Grun and Starton. 1963.
[9] A. Hirumi. The design and sequencing of E-learning interactions: A
grounded approach. International Journal on E-learning, 1(1), 19− 27.
2002.
[10] C. Vrasidas and M. S. McIsaac. Factors influencing interaction in an
online course. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22− 36.
1999.
[11] C. Babadogana and F. Ünalb. Examples of instructional design for
social studies according to meaningful learning and information
processing theories. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2155-
2158. 2011.
[12] B. Yeúilyaprak. Geliúim-Ögrenme-Ögretim. Ankara: Pegem A
Yayinlari. 2009.
[13] D. H. Jonassen. Learning as activity. Educational Technology, 42(2),
45-51. 2002.
[14] P. Karppinen. Meaningful learning with digital and online videos:
theoretical perspectives. Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education Journal, 13(3), 233- 250. 2005.
[15] A. B. Rendas, M. Fonseca and P. R. Pinto. Toward meaningful learning
in undergraduate medical education using concept maps in a PBL
pathophys iology course. Advances in Physiology Education, 30(1), 23
- 29. 2006.
[16] S. Rick and R. A. Weber. Meaningful learning and transfer of learning
in games played repeatedly without feedback. Games and Economic
Behavior, 68(2), 716 - 730. 2010.
[17] G. Clough and R. Ferguson. Virtual worlds are authentic sites for
learning. In K. Sheehy, R. Ferguson, & G. Clough (Eds.), Virtual
worlds: Controversies at the frontier of education. New York: Nova
Science. 2010.
[18] M. Grabe and C. Grabe. Integrating technology for meaningful learning.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 1998.
[19] J. L. Howland, D. H. Jonassen and R. M. Marra. Meaningful Learning
with Technology (4th ed). Boston: Pearson. 2012.
[20] C. C. Bonwell and J. A. Eison. Active learning: Creating excitement in
the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1.
Washington, DC: George Washington University Clearinghouse on
Higher Education. http://www.ntlf.com/html/lib/bib/91-9dig.htm
(accessed November 1, 2007). Archived at
http://www.webcitation.org/5Wl5FQQh7. 1991.
[21] B. ed. Bloom. Taxonomy of educational objectives, Vol. 1: The
cognitive domain. New York: McKay. 1956.
[22] R. C. Schank. Goal-based scenarios. In R. C. Schank & E. Langer
(Eds.), Beliefs, reasoning, and decision making: Psycho-logic in honor
of Bob Abelson. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1994.
[23] L. Herod. Adult learning from theory to practice. Retrieved on January
23, 20 09, from. http://www.nald.ca/adultlearningcourse/glossary.htm.
2002.
[24] J. Herrington and R. Oliver. An instructional design framework for
authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 48 ,23- 48. 2000.
[25] M. M. Lombardi. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Authentic learning for the
21st century: An overview. EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. 2007.
[26] L. Shu-Sheng, H. Hsiu-Mei And C. Gwo-Dong. An activity-theoretical
approach to investigate learners- factors toward e-learning systems.
Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1906-1920. 2006.
[27] M. V. L├│pez-Pérez, M. C. Pérez-L├│pez and L. Rodr├¡guez-Ariza.
Blended learning in higher ed ucation: Students- perceptions and their
relation to outcomes. Computers & Education, 56, 818 -826. V.
[28] S. Vosniadou. Toward a revised cognitive psychology for new advances
in learning and instruction. Learning and Instruction, 6(2), 95-109.
1996.
[29] S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly and C. Wylie. The handbook of
research on student engagement. New York: Springer Science. 2011.
[30] J. A. Fredricks, P. C. Blumenfeld and A. H. Paris. School engagement:
Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational
Research, 74, 59-109. 2004.
[31] S. J. Jimerson, E. Campos and J. L. Grief. Toward an understanding of
definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. The
California School Psychologist, 8, 7-27. 2003.
[32] National Research Council. Engaging schools: Fostering high school
students- motivation to learn. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. 2004.
[33] E. A. Skinne, T. A. Kindermann, J. P. Connell and J. G. Wellborn.
Engagement and disaffection as organizational constructs in the
dynamics of motivational development. In K. Wentzel & A. Wigfield
(Eds.), Handbook of motivation in school. Malwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 2009.
[34] W. H. Rice, Moodle E-Learning Course Development. Packt Publishing
Ltd, Birmingham, UK. 2006.