Advertisement

Motivating Students or Teachers?

Challenges for a Successful Implementation of Online-Learning in Industry-Related Vocational Training
  • Nils Malzahn
  • Tina Ganster
  • Nicole Sträfling
  • Nicole Krämer
  • H. Ulrich Hoppe
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8095)

Abstract

In this paper we present our findings from the FoodWeb2.0 project about success indicators and restraints while implementing Web2.0 based learning processes. We conducted two courses with the same content with two different target groups from the German food industry: one with regular employees and one with teachers of dedicated education facilities. Comparing the performance of the two courses by triangulating methods from Social Network Analysis and quantitative and qualitative surveys, we identified indicators for the successful implementation and differences in the motivation of learners and teachers. These findings illustrate the need for strategies involving and motivating teachers when introducing modern learning methods and tools within the food industry and other related branches.

Keywords

Learning analytics Teaching techniques and strategies for online learning Learner motivation and engagement Vocational training CSCL Web2.0 Collaborative Learning SNA 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Katz, L., Blumler, J.G., Gurevitch, M.: Uses and Gratifications Research. The Public Opinion Quarterly 37(4), 509–523 (1974); HAAS u.a. 2007Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Raacke, J., Bonds-Raacke, J.: MySpace and Facebook: Identifying Dimensions of Uses and Gratifications for Friend Networking Sites. Individual Differences Research 8, 27–33 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haferkamp, N., Krämer, N.C.: Creating a Digital Self. Impression Management and Impression Formation on Social Networking Sites. In: Drotner, K., Schröder, K.C. (eds.) Digital Content Creation: Perceptions, Practices & Perspectives, pp. 129–146. Peter Lang, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tannenberg, J.: Using Cooperative Learning in the Undergraduate Computer Science Classroom. In: Proceedings of the Midwest Small College Computing Conference (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kulik, J.A., Kulik, C.C.: College Teaching. In: Peterson, P., Walberg, H. (eds.) Research in Teaching: Concepts, Findings and Implications. McCutcheon Publishing (1979)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baird, J.R., White, R.T.: Improving learning through enhanced metacognition: A classroom study. In: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans (1984)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohen, E.G.: Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research 64(1), 1–35 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Breen, P.: 76 Career-related liberal arts skills. AAHE Bulletin 34(2) (1981)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johnson, R.T., Johnson, D.W.: Using cooperative learning in math. In: Davidson, N. (ed.) Cooperative Learning in Mathematics: A Handbook for Teachers. Addison-Wesley (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davidson, N. (ed.): Cooperative Learning in Mathematics: A Handbook for Teachers. Addison-Wesley (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tinto, V.: Enhancing learning via community. NEA Higher Education Journal 6(1), 53–54 (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lehtinen, E., Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Muukkonen, H.: Computer Supported Collaborative Learning: A Review. (1999), http://www.comlab.hut.fi/opetus/205/etatehtava1.pdf (access March 31, 2013)
  13. 13.
    Kerres, M.: Potenziale von Web 2.0 nutzen. In: Hohenstein, A., Wilbers, K. (eds.) Handbuch E-Learning. DWD Verlag, München (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    King, F.B., Young, M.F., Drivere-Richmond, K., Schrader, P.G.: Defining Distance Learning and Distance Education. Educational Technology Review 9(1), 1–14 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aronson, E., Patnoe, S.: Cooperation in the classroom: The jigsaw method. Longman, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dodge, B.: FOCUS: Five rules for writing great WebQuests. Learning & Leading with Technology 28(58), 6–9 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Swan, K.: Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education 22(2), 306–331 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baumeister, R.F., Leary, M.R.: The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin 117(3), 497–529 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rammstedt, B., John, O.P.: Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality 41(1), 203–212 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bergin, J., Eckstein, J., Manns, M.L., Sharp, H. (eds.): Patterns for Active Learning (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    SVEA: Zusammenfassung der regionalen Bedarfsanalyse – Der Einsatz von Web 2.0 in der Berufs- und Erwachsenenbilddung in Baden-Württemberg (2010), http://www.svea-project.eu/fileadmin/_svea/downloads/Zusammenfassung_der_regionalen_Bedarfsanalyse_Baden-Wuerttemberg.pdf (access: March 31, 2012)
  22. 22.
    Green, N., Green, K.: Kooperatives Lernen im Klassenraum und Kollegium - Das Trainingsbuch. Seelze (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Imai, M.: Kaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success. McGraw-Hill, Irwin (1986)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nils Malzahn
    • 1
  • Tina Ganster
    • 1
  • Nicole Sträfling
    • 1
  • Nicole Krämer
    • 1
  • H. Ulrich Hoppe
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany

Personalised recommendations