Campus-Wide Information SystemsDesigning Web 2.0 based constructivist‐oriented e‐learning unitsChing Sing Chai Huay Lit Woo Qiyun Wang

Article information:To cite this document:Ching Sing Chai Huay Lit Woo Qiyun Wang, (2010),"Designing Web 2.0 based constructivist#orientede#learning units", Campus-Wide Information Systems, Vol. 27 Iss 2 pp. 68 - 78Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10650741011033044

Downloaded on: 05 November 2014, At: 05:35 (PT)References: this document contains references to 24 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 762 times since 2010*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Virpi Slotte, Anne Herbert, (2006),"Putting professional development online: integrating learning asproductive activity", Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 18 Iss 4 pp. 235-247S.M. Syed#Khuzzan, J.S. Goulding, J. Underwood, (2008),"Personalised learning environments – Part 1:Core development issues for construction", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 40 Iss 6 pp. 310-319Trevor Price, (2009),"Yearning to learn from e#learning: the experiences of a University of Glamorganpractitioner", Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, Vol. 1 Iss 2 pp. 4-14

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 383794 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

okuz

Eyl

ul U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:35

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

okuz

Eyl

ul U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:35

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Designing Web 2.0 basedconstructivist-oriented e-learning

unitsChing Sing Chai, Huay Lit Woo and Qiyun Wang

National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Abstract

Purpose – The main purpose of this paper is to present how meaningful e-learning units can becreated by using an online tool called Meaningful E-learning Units (MeLU). The paper also aims todescribe how created e-learning units can be shared by teachers and students.

Design/methodology/approach – This tool can help to produce e-learning units that consist of sixcomponents: introduction context/scenario, activities, rules and roles, assessment, and concludingactivities. A sample of an e-learning unit called “Creating Tessellations” was created by using the tooland is presented in this paper.

Findings – It is easy to create e-learning units by using the MeLU tool as it provides a large numberof templates for teachers to choose. The tool also allows multimedia elements to be added to or deletedfrom the unit. Also, this tool enables teachers to share their e-learning units with others and tocustomize existing units for their use.

Originality/value – The proposed form of e-learning lessons could help to advance the integrationof ICT-enabled constructivist learning in schools. The potential to further enhance MeLU’s capacityand to further develop it to incorporate Web 3.0 technologies are also discussed.

Keywords E-learning, Communication technologies, Worldwide web, Software tools

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionCurrent advancement of Web 2.0 technologies has changed the ecology of the countlessusers of the internet dramatically. Creating web sites and web pages are now simplifieddrastically such that anyone who knows word processing is able to publish their workonline without any difficulty. Building on the affordances of the Web 1.0 technologies,pedagogical ideas such as Webquest (Dodge, 2007) and other forms of e-learning hasgained wide acceptance among educators for the past decade. With the current Web 2.0technologies, we believe that it is timely to propose more refined ideas about howteachers can create e-learning units that are highly customizable, sharable and open tofurther refinements (Wang, 2009). We propose e-learning may be constructed into unitsusing the constructivist paradigm and undergirded by the Jonassen’s framework ofmeaningful learning (Jonassen et al., 2008). In the following paragraphs, we explain ournotion of e-learning and the framework of meaningful learning before we illustrate howwe operationalize the idea into an e-learning unit.

Based on Rosenberg’s (2001) explication of e-learning, we delimit our notion ofe-learning as a broad collection of pedagogical solutions deliver through the internet toenhance human performance. The essential characteristic of e-learning is that it isnetwork-based, which facilitates immediate updating, storage/retrieval, sharing anddistribution of instruction or information.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1065-0741.htm

CWIS27,2

68

Campus-Wide Information SystemsVol. 27 No. 2, 2010pp. 68-78q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1065-0741DOI 10.1108/10650741011033044

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

okuz

Eyl

ul U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:35

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

While e-learning is more commonly delivered through the internet, we argue thatonce an e-learning unit is created, it allows the instructors to use it both in the onlinedistance learning setting and offline face-to-face setting. In other words, an e-learningunit can be employed as learning resources for blended learning environments. As theunit is designed with online learning as an assumed condition, all instructions have tobe clearly articulated and the teaching and learning resources properly integrated.With this, when the e-learning unit is employed in a face-to-face setting, the instructorsare freed from explicit teaching and focus on facilitating learners’ learning. We foreseegreat potential in using e-learning units in the manner described to enhanceaffordances for learning.

Research studies have shown that e-learning is an appropriate means to encourageself-directed learning and collaborative learning among learners, which are essentialqualities that learners need for twenty-first century learning (Liu, 2009; Osburg andTodorova, 2009). Vonderwell and Turner’s (2005) study indicates that the onlinelearning environment enhances pre-service teachers sense of self-direction byproviding them with more learner control. Song and Hill (2007) observe similar effectsof online learning, both in the cognitive and the metacognitive dimensions ofself-directed learning. Chai and Tan’s (2009) study, on the other hand, indicates thatengaging teachers in extended online discussion promote co-construction of knowledgeamong teachers. However, to reap the potential benefits of e-learning, there are somecrucial pedagogical considerations that have to be attended to. In the next section, wearticulate the framework of meaningful learning.

2. Theoretical framework for constructing meaningful e-learning unitsConstructivism argues that learning is a process of active sense-making by theindividuals (Brooks, 2002). Social constructivism further emphasizes on the role ofcommunities and interactions among members for collaborative sense-making (Hungand Chen, 2006). In essence, both theories support that to facilitate meaningfullearning, the designed learning environments have to engage learners. In addition tothis, Jonassen et al. (2008) also articulate five essential characteristics of meaningfullearning with technology, they are authentic, constructive, active, intentional, andcooperative.

Authenticity is the key enabler for the emergence of meaningful learning. It isusually assumed that real life problems are authentic but we argue that authenticityhas to be grounded in the learners’ own world and with reference to the topic to belearnt. Many real life problems are by nature authentic but they may not be relevant tothe learners. For example, using actual stock exchange figures is a good example forstudying the topic “profits and losses” in Mathematics but few students understand theoperations of the stock market let alone using it. Authentic learning occurs whenlearners are able to relate the real life problem to the subject matter in such way thatstudents become interested in solving the problem. Pedagogically, this means aninstructor must possess the ability to present authentic problems or identify theauthentic problems by negotiating with the learners to ensure that the learningassociated with the problems is meaningful.

Authentic problems are usually complex and ill-defined (Brickell and Herrington,2006) and are solvable only when constructive, active, intentional, and cooperativeactivities are employed. Under such a setting, learners are likely to select strategies

E-learning units

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

okuz

Eyl

ul U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:35

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

such as forming groups to enable their cognitive loads to be distributed and judgmentto be made as objectively as possible. This allows learning to take place cooperatively.

Because the problems are complex, learners are also likely to adopt other strategiessuch as searching for raw data, interpreting data into useful information andorganizing information into manageable resources. This entails active processing.Learners then need to use the resources to model solutions, make arguments anddemonstrate that the solutions are workable. This is a process of knowledgeconstruction. But because the entire repertoire of activities is aimed at providingsolutions to the problems, the learning is intentional.

Many of these activities mentioned above can be carried out with the use of Web 2.0technologies. For example, the online discussion forum has the potential to spurlearners towards deeper learning (Scardamalia and Bereiter, 2006); electronic conceptmaps can help learners build structural knowledge (Nesbit and Adesope, 2006) and ICTcan be used as a cognitive tool for meaningful learning (e.g., Riley and Ahlberg, 2004;Yildirim, 2006). Given the affordances of Web 2.0 technologies, we argue thatmeaningful e-learning is possible if a constructivist mindset is pursued and themeaningful learning framework is adhered to and the process is supported by Web 2.0tools. Discussions on how a prototype e-learning unit is constructed under theaforesaid requirements are presented below.

3. Constructing the Meaningful e-Learning UnitThe Meaningful e-Learning Unit (MeLU), viewable from http://lessonbox.lst.nie.edu.sg/wbaml, is an expansion of, and hopefully an improvement on, two existing learningsystems – the Webquest (Dodge, 2007) and the microLESSONS (Lim and Chan, 2007).Both systems are conceptualized as customizable lessons that are created by teachersto stimulate higher order thinking among learners and are facilitated by the use oftechnologies. Each learning unit consists of two to eight periods of classroom lessons.The structure of MeLU is different, its design of activities is based on tasks rather thanlessons because “lesson” requires learning to take place in a fixed time frame bute-learning is supposed to be unbounded by time and space. The use of task helps toeliminate this shortcoming.

MeLU recommends the use of six components as a basic design to form a unit oflearning. The six components are:

(1) introduction;

(2) context/scenario;

(3) activities;

(4) rules and roles;

(5) assessment; and

(6) concluding activities.

“Introduction” contains background information about the learning and the learningobjectives. “Context/scenario” presents cases for research, issues to address orproblems to solve depending on the approach(es) applied in the unit. They provide theconditions under which the learning is to take place. “Activities” delineate the tasksand hence the activities that the learners have to undertake to meet the demands asspelt out in the context/scenario. “Rules and roles” provide guidance on how

CWIS27,2

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

okuz

Eyl

ul U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:35

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

collaboration may be proceeded and the dos and don’ts during the process.“Assessment” is a space to allow learners to evaluate their learning, and finally,“concluding activities” provide follow-up activities to encourage learners to reflectupon their learning processes.

To illustrate how the above components are designed and constructed, an exampleentitled “Creating Tessellations” is used. The unit begins with the introduction (seeFigure 1).

In Figure 1, the main purpose of the introduction page is to orientate the learners sothat they are ready to learn. This involves providing some background knowledge andthe learning objectives. We have also included relevant video clips from YouTube(a popular video space using Web 2.0 technology for people of similar to share theirvideos and interact with one another) to scaffold the learning. The page also containsother information such as the students’ characteristics, level of schooling, subjectmatter and topic so as to encourage other teachers whose students are of similarsettings to share their work. The required information will be prompted automaticallyby the MeLU system when a new lesson is created.

The next component is context. Figure 2 depicts a context meant to situate students’learning in authentic settings. Situate learning in authentic context, which can be in theform of a case, a scenario or a problem, has been reported as a means to providechallenging tasks to pre-service teachers (So and Kim, 2009). We suggest that teacherdesigners for MeLU to design learning pegged at levels where students can apply theirdaily life experiences. For example, to encourage students to write vivid description ofpeople, which is a common topic in narrative writing; teachers can create specific

Figure 1.An introduction page of an

example called “CreatingTessellations”

E-learning units

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

okuz

Eyl

ul U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:35

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

scenarios where such skills are needed. A scenario example could be a series of picturesdepicting the behavior of a man suspecting of committing a crime. The picturesaccompanied by a short explanation constitute the required context that provides ahead start for the rest of activities.

Figure 3 shows the second activity in the MeLU example. The first activity is aninternet-based research, which is a common activity for Webquest. The second activityrequires the students to view a short PowerPoint presentation on what tasks they haveto undertake. It then provides a link to a freeware program that allows students endlessopportunities to create tessellations. The designers can also encourage students to lookfor other available web tools. Currently, teachers can make use of many web-basedapplications to engage students in a wide variety of activities to promote intentional,active and constructive learning. For example, using C-map (see http://cmap.ihmc.us/)to help students construct complex concepts, using Netlogo for modeling and usingGeometer’s Sketchpad to manipulate and learn geometry. Other generic software thatis readily available such as PowerPoint, Word and Excel spreadsheet, and otherapplications such as Photostory and Windows Movie Makers offer another range ofconstruction tools for learners to construct knowledge. Web 2.0 technologies, on theother hand, offer opportunities for learners to interact socially in collaborative works.Greenhow et al. (2009) provide a general heuristic of choosing different Web 2.0technologies for different pedagogical purposes. While Wikis are suitable forcollaborative knowledge building, blogs, podcasts, videocasts encourage are suitablefor creative works. To encourage sharing and peer-learning, we included an interaction

Figure 2.The context for theexample “CreatingTessellations”

CWIS27,2

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

okuz

Eyl

ul U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:35

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

space (not shown in the screen) after activity 2 for students to upload their electronicartifacts such as the photographs they took, their personal journals in a blog format,etc. All other classmates can share their views, make comments and even suggestfurther collaboration. At present, the interactive space was created outside the MeLUsystem. We have plans to make such an interactive space an integral part of the MeLUsystem in the future.

The ability to conduct meaningful dialogue and to co-construct knowledge has beenhighlighted by many educators (Mercer, 2004; Vygotsky, 1978). It is generally believedthat language development and thinking skills are intertwined and students need awide range of opportunities to collaborate. However, it cannot be assumed that qualitydialogue would naturally come forth when students are put into groups. To enhancethe quality of the interactions, we argue that it is necessary to set up appropriate rulesand roles for students and these rules and roles should be made explicit, grounded inthe activities and the context. Mercer (2004) has articulated a set of generic rules thatmay foster exploratory talk, which in turns facilitate thinking together amongstudents. Figure 4 shows our attempt to apply some of his suggestions for this lesson.

The last two components of MeLU are the Assessment and the ConcludingActivities. We advocate that both summative assessment and formative assessmentfor learning to be included in the learning process. Assessment should be a multi-wayprocess whereby both teachers and students including their peers are part of theprocess. To achieve this, common summative assessments such as online tests aimedat determining students’ level of learning by the teacher may be used. In the present

Figure 3.Second activity page of the

example “CreatingTessellations”

E-learning units

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

okuz

Eyl

ul U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:35

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

system, the test is linked to MeLU in the form of a hyperlink. Formative assessmentscan be done by assessing students’ portfolios such as their blogs or the artifacts theycreated. The criteria of assessment are normally based on rubrics. We suggest that theassessment should include peer-evaluations to promote accountability and criticalness.In this aspect, works that use wikis or weblogs which are enabled by Web 2.0technologies are good candidates for such assessment because they offer provision forinteractive comments and suggestions.

For Concluding Activities, we believe that learning does not end at an assessment ora test; it should allow learners to do self-reflection on their learning processes. This isdifferent from peer critiques or an assessment grade given by the teacher. Thereflection is initiated internally and can instantiate greater meaning to an individual. Inother words, it is crucial for the learners to cultivate a skill of “learning how to learn”(Claxton, 2008).

4. The MeLu’s features and interfaceThe current MeLU system that we have developed adopts an open registration system.It is intended for the use of any teacher. A teacher only needs to register with thesystem for an account and he/she is on the way to create a new e-learning unit. Tomake the designing of an e-learning unit easier, the system provides up to over ahundred designed templates for the teachers to choose from. The system has thefollowing features to facilitate the teachers’ effort in generating the lessons:

. The unit can be tagged with keywords for faster searching and retrieval.

. Every lesson unit is assigned a unique website address automatically.

Figure 4.Roles and rules of theexample “CreatingTessellations”

CWIS27,2

74

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

okuz

Eyl

ul U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:35

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

. The system provides the functions of edit/add/delete to manage pages and thecontents.

. The system also allows multimedia elements to be added to, deleted from andedited on the pages.

. Lesson units can be downloaded for use in off-line mode.

. Lesson units are sharable among all registered teacher-users. They candownload any lesson unit and customize it to fit their own teaching needs.

. The system allows the teacher to assign rights-of-use to a specific group ofstudents for them to carry out collaborative works. For example, the teachercould assign task A to one group of students and task B to another groupstudents. The two groups of student carry out collaborative works but withdifferent tasks.

The last two points are designed specifically for the system to work with most Web 2.0technologies. One of the special features of the MeLU system is its ability to track theusers’ actions and inform the original creators of the lesson unit the number of timeshis/her lesson units have been downloaded for adoption or adaptation. The otherspecial feature is that the system makes provision for a lesson unit to be co-constructedin a collaborative manner. This is done by selecting one or more teachers from theregistered user list and then clicks a special button to add the selected to be acollaborator. A collaborator shares the same level of rights and hence the same degreeof function usage in the system.

5. A proposed framework for MeLU’s future developmentWe have plans for the MeLU system to be scalable and upgradable in terms ofinteraction space and shareability. At present, the MeLU is developed with thestudents and teachers in mind (see Figure 5). Each of them occupies a private spacedenoted by the circles labelled “teachers” and “students”. They interact and produce aninteractive space labelled by the term “ST Space” where “S” stands for the students

Figure 5.Framework to extend

MeLU spaces based onWeb 2.0 technologies

E-learning units

75

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

okuz

Eyl

ul U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:35

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

and “T” stands for the teachers. The ST space is undergirded by Web 2.0 technologieswhere the tools are normally built to enhance sociality and shareability. This is themain focus which the present MeLU is trying to provide and was discussed in earliersections. Based on this framework of design, we see the potential to extend the MeLUto incorporate works of the teachers and students that are non-interactive in naturesuch as the teachers’ own production of resources like video clips and teaching aids;and the students’ own school projects and personal life pictures. These are possibleplatforms that can be built into MeLU to create spaces called “Students’ Portfolio” and“Teachers’ Portfolio” (see Figure 5). With the two portfolios, teachers and students willhave greater autonomy to manage their works and resources and decide on appropriatestrategies to maximize their teaching and learning. What have been described willlikely to be our next phase of development for the MeLU.

With Web 2.0 quickening its pace to maturity, Web 3.0 is now the most-talk-abouttopic and it is gradually taking shape. If MeLU is to function with its full potential, wefeel that the framework for design could even be expanded to include the public whoare the other educationists in the industries and also stake-holders of schools such aspersonnel from the Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE) and the students’ parents.Lucier (2009) has put forward a succinct idea of the future Web 3.0 technology, that is“content relevance in Web 3.0 is heightened by location and time”. This informs us thatcurrency of information and the ability to reach out to all related is the key demand inthe next generation of internet usage. For example, Twitter is a product of the need toobtain readily available information by using readily tools like hand phones. Going bythis direction, our third phase of work would incorporate a third space, the “Public”space, into the MeLU (see Figure 6). This will constitute a new interaction space at theintersection of the teachers’, students’ and public spaces; we name it the “STP Space”.It will harness the Web 3.0 technologies to make learning not only a truly holistic eventbut also one that offers immediate connectivity and information availability. Forexample, teachers will receive updates of e-lesson designed by others that are similar to

Figure 6.Framework for MeLU toincorporate the futureWeb 3.0 technologies

CWIS27,2

76

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

okuz

Eyl

ul U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:35

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

what they have put up. This will help them in having more ideas and choices whenthey are faced with students with diverse background.

6. ConclusionIn this paper, we introduce our conceptualization of using MeLU to create e-learningunits that we believe would promote meaningful learning. We argue that the Web 2.0based constructivist-oriented e-learning units are more congruent with educationreforms that are targeted towards constructivist learning. Given that the e-learningunits, once published, become a public cognitive artefact that can be shared, furtherrefined and adapted. It is our belief that it will promote more ambitious form of learningamong users on the internet. We also argue that with the fast pacing of Web 2.0 to Web3.0, learning becomes more dependent on the currency of the information and the state ofconnectivity to the world. To achieve this, we propose that other educationists, schoolstake-holders and the like should be included in the e-learning processes to makelearners experience the dynamicity and the quick-pacing of the real world so that theknowledge students build in such a process will be meaningful to them.

References

Brickell, G. and Herrington, J. (2006), “Scaffolding learners in authentic, problem based e-learningenvironments: the geography challenge”, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 531-47.

Brooks, J.G. (2002), Schooling for Life: Reclaiming the Essence of Learning, ASCD, Alexandria,VA.

Chai, C.S. and Tan, S.C. (2009), “Professional development of teachers for computer-supportedcollaborative learning (CSCL) through knowledge building”, Teacher College Records,Vol. 111 No. 5, pp. 1296-327.

Claxton, G. (2008), “Cultivating positive learning dispositions”, in Daniels, H., Lauder, H. andPorter, J. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Education, Routledge, London.

Dodge, B. (2007), “Webquest.org”, available at: www.webquest.org/index.php

Greenhow, C., Robelia, B. and Hughes, J.E. (2009), “Web 2.0 and classroom research: what pathshould we take now?”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 246-59.

Hung, D. and Chen, D. (2006), “Transactional-constructivist perspective to learning: implicationsfor the design of learning activities”, in Khine, M.S. (Ed.), Teaching with Technology:Strategies for Engaged Learning, Prentice Hall, Singapore, pp. 63-76.

Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Marra, R. and Crismond, D. (2008), Meaningful Learning withTechnology, 3rd ed., Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Lim, C.P. and Chan, B.C. (2007), “MicroLESSONS in teacher education: examining pre-serviceteachers’ pedagogical beliefs”, Computers & Education, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 474-94.

Liu, M.Z. (2009), “The design of a web-based course for self-directed learning”, Campus-wideInformation Systems, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 122-31.

Lucier, T. (2009), “What is Web 3.0 definition? internet marketing for travel and tourism”,available at: www.tourismkeys.ca/blog/2009/01/what-is-web-30-definition/

Mercer, N. (2004), “Thinking together”, available at: www.naldic.org.uk/docs/members/documents/NQ2.3.4.pdf

Nesbit, J.C. and Adesope, O.O. (2006), “Learning with concept and knowledge maps:a meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 413-48.

E-learning units

77

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

okuz

Eyl

ul U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:35

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Osburg, T. and Todorova, A. (2009), “Online platform support for sustained, collaborative andself-directed engagement of teachers in a blended professional development program”,in Spaniol, M., Li, Q., Klamma, R. and Lau, R.W.H. (Eds), Advances in Web Based Learning– ICWL 2009, Vol. 2009, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg, pp. 312-21.

Riley, N.R. and Ahlberg, M. (2004), “Investigating the use of ICT-based concept mappingtechniques on creativity in literacy tasks”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 20No. 4, pp. 244-56.

Rosenberg, M.J. (2001), E-leearning: Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the Digital Age,McGraw-Hill, Blacklick, OH.

Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (2006), “Knowledge building: theory, pedagogy, andtechnology”, in Sawyer, K. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences,Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 97-115.

So, H. and Kim, B. (2009), “Learning about problem based learning: student teachers integratingtechnology, pedagogy and content knowledge”, Australasian Journal of EducationalTechnology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 101-16.

Song, L. and Hill, J.R. (2007), “A conceptual model for understanding self-directed learning inonline environments”, Journal of Interactive Online Learning, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 27-41.

Vonderwell, S. and Turner, S. (2005), “Active learning and preservice teachers’ experience in anonline course: a case study”, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, Vol. 13 No. 1,pp. 65-84.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978), Mind in Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Wang, Q.Y. (2009), “E-learning in China”, Campus-wide Information Systems, Vol. 26 No. 2,pp. 77-81.

Yildirim, Z. (2006), “Hypermedia as cognitive tool: Learner teachers’ experience in learning bydoing”, Educational Technology & Society, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 107-17.

Further reading

Bereiter, C. and Scardamalia, M. (2006), “Education for the knowledge age”, in Alexander, P.A.and Winne, P.H. (Eds), Handbook of Educational Psychology, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum,Mahwah, NJ, pp. 695-713.

About the authorsChing Sing Chai is currently an Assistant Professor at the National Institute of Education,Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. His research interest is in the field of teachers’beliefs, e-learning and computer-supported collaborative learning. Ching Sing Chai thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: chingsing.chai@nie.edu.sg

Huay Lit Woo is a Lecturer at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang TechnologicalUniversity, Singapore. His research interests include pedagogical agent and e-learning design.

Qiyun Wang is an Associate Professor at the National Institute of Education, NanyangTechnological University, Singapore. His research interests include use of Web 2.0 for teachingand learning, and learning environment design.

CWIS27,2

78

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Dow

nloa

ded

by D

okuz

Eyl

ul U

nive

rsity

At 0

5:35

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)