Advertisement

Faculty Views of Adaptive E-Learning in a South African University

Living reference work entry
  • 192 Downloads
Part of the Global Education Systems book series (GES)

Abstract

The current study draws on research conducted on the pervasive nature of adaptive e-learning (AEL) (digital) technologies and cognitive enhancement for South Africa’s science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and non-STEM education. The current research was anchored on the perceived failure of execution processes or delayed adoption rates regarding adaptive e-learning (digital) technologies and cognitive enhancement as compared to other industries. Guided by this objective, the current study was conducted involving ten university academics recruited from a South African university. The design was exploratory, in which respondents’ experiences were analyzed via discourse analysis. This study found that many of the university academic participants lacked sufficient understanding of AEL for AEL to be adequately implemented and used at the university. A hypothetical stance for future research is that − while it could be inferred that the current cohort was particularly weak, the literature suggests that the challenge is much more pervasive. Indeed, it is hypothesized that if academics generally were to be investigated from almost any university, similar results would ensue. The implication is that there is an extensive need to concretize notions regarding AEL within any university and possibly beyond for successful implementation to occur.

Keywords

Adaptive learning technology E-learning E-health Computational cognition Information processing 

References

  1. Barr, N., Pennycook, G., Stolz, J. A., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015). The brain in your pocket: Evidence that smartphones are used to supplant thinking. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 473–480.Google Scholar
  2. Basitere, M., & Ivala, E. N. (2017a). An evaluation of the effectiveness of the use of multimedia and Wiley PLUS web-based homework system in enhancing learning in the chemical engineering extended curriculum program physics course. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 15(2), 156–173.Google Scholar
  3. Basitere, M., & Ivala, E. (2017b). Evaluation of an adaptive learning technology in a first-year extended curriculum programme physics course. South African Computer Journal, 29(3), 1–15.Google Scholar
  4. Beal, C. R., Qu, L., & Lee, H. (2008). Mathematics motivation and achievement as predictors of high school students’ guessing and help-seeking with instructional software. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 4(6), 507–514.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, V., Bishop, D., & Przybylski, A. (2015). The debate over digital technology and young people needless shock and more substance. British Medical Journal, 3(3), 46–67.Google Scholar
  6. Bostrom, N. (2008). Smart policy: Cognitive enhancement in the public interest in Rathenau Institute. The Hague: Rathenau Institute.Google Scholar
  7. Bostrom, N., & Ord, T. (2006). The reversal test: Eliminating status quo bias in applied ethics. Ethics, 116(4), 656–680. Preprint at: http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/statusquo.pdfGoogle Scholar
  8. Bostrom, N., & Roache, R. (2011). Smart policy: Cognitive enhancement and the public interest. In J. Savulescu, R. terMeulen, & G. Kahane (Eds.), Enhancing human capabilities. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Bostrom, N., & Sandberg, A. (2007, in press). Cognitive enhancement: Methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics. Available on: http://www.nickbostrom.com/cognitive.pdf. Retrieved 06 June 2019.
  10. Bostrom, N., & Sandberg, A. (2009). Cognitive enhancement: Methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(3), 311–341.Google Scholar
  11. Brusilovsky, P. (2003). Adaptive and intelligent web-based educational systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 13(2–4), 159–172.Google Scholar
  12. Buchanan, A. (2011). Better than human: The promise and perils of enhancing ourselves. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Carbonell, J. R. (1970). AI in CAI: An artificial intelligence approach to computer aided instruction. IEEE Transactions on Man-Machine Systems, 11(4), 190–202.Google Scholar
  14. Chassy, P., & Grodd, W. (2012). Comparison of quantities: Core and format-dependent regions as revealed by fMRI. Cerebral Cortex, 22, 1420–1430.Google Scholar
  15. Deary, I., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandes, C. (2007). Intelligence and educational achievement. Intelligence, 35(1), 13–21.Google Scholar
  16. Di Giacomo, D., Ranieri, J., & Lacasa, P. (2017). Digital learning as enhanced learning processing? Cognitive evidence for new insight of smart learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1329.Google Scholar
  17. Fernandez, A. (2019). Five reasons the future of brain enhancement is digital, pervasive and (hopefully) bright. Available on https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/05/five-reasons-the-future-of-brain-enhancement-is-digital-pervasive-and-hopefully-bright/. Retrieved 10 Oct 2019.
  18. Finn, W., & LoPresti, P. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of neuroprosthetic methods. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture. Cognition, 28, 3–71.Google Scholar
  20. Geake, J. G. (2000). Knock down the fences: Implications of brain science for education. Principal Matters, 1, 41–43.Google Scholar
  21. Gee, J. P. (1999). Review of the “Learning Paradox” manuscript. American Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 87–95.Google Scholar
  22. Given, L. M. (2008). The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Vol. 1–0). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  23. Grgurovic, M., Chapelle, C. A., & Shelley, M. C. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL, 25(2), 165–198.Google Scholar
  24. Guay, R., & McDaniel, E. (1977). The relationship between mathematics achievement and spatial abilities among elementary school children. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 8(3), 211–215.Google Scholar
  25. Guilhermina, L. M. (2007). The limits and possibilities of ICT in education. Educational Sciences Journal, 3, 39–48.Google Scholar
  26. Harrison, C., Lunzer, E., Tymms, P., Fitz-Gibbon, C., & Restorick, J. (2004). Use of ICT and its relationship with performance in examinations: A comparison of the ImpaCT2 project’s research findings using pupil-level, school-level and multilevel modelling data. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(5), 319–337.Google Scholar
  27. Hassy, P., & Grodd, W. (2016). Editorial: Abstract Mathematical Cognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 719.Google Scholar
  28. Heider, J. S. (2015). Using digital learning solutions to address higher education’s greatest challenges. Publishing Research Quarterly, 31(3), 183–189.Google Scholar
  29. Hsin, C.-T., Li, M.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). The influence of young children’s use of technology on their learning: A review. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17, 85–99.Google Scholar
  30. Johnstone, B. (2002). Discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  31. Jones, S., & Burnett, G. (2008). Spatial ability and learning to program. Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, 4, 47–61.Google Scholar
  32. Kennedy, P., Andreasen, D., Ehirim, P., King, B., Kirby, T., Mao, H., & Moore, M. (2004). Using human extra-cortical local field potentials to control a switch. Journal of Neural Engineering, 1(2), 72–77.Google Scholar
  33. Koponen, T., Aunola, K., Ahonen, T., & Nurmi, J. (2007). Cognitive predictors of single-digit and procedural calculation skills and their covariation with reading skill. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 97(3), 220–241.Google Scholar
  34. Lee, K., Ng, S., Ng, E., & Lim, Z. (2004). Working memory and literacy as predictors of performance on algebraic word problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 89(2), 140–158.Google Scholar
  35. Lyons, I. M., Ansari, D., & Beilock, S. L. (2008). Symbolic estrangement: Evidence against a strong association between numerical symbols and the quantities they represent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(4), 635–641.Google Scholar
  36. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R. F., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–13.Google Scholar
  37. Mendezabal, M. J. N., & Tindowen, D. J. C. (2018). Improving students’ attitude, conceptual understanding and procedural skills in differential calculus through Microsoft mathematics. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 8(4), 385–397.Google Scholar
  38. Nestojko, J. F., Finley, J. R., & Roediger, H. L. (2013). Extending cognition to external agents. Psychological Inquiry, 24(4), 321–325.Google Scholar
  39. Noesgaard, S. S., & Ørngreen, R. (2015). The effectiveness of e-Learning: An explorative and integrative review of the definitions, methodologies and factors that promote e-Learning effectiveness. The Electronic Journal of e- Learning, 13(4), 278–290.Google Scholar
  40. Passolunghi, M. C., Vercelloni, B., & Schadee, H. (2007). The precursors of mathematics learning: Working memory, phonological ability and numerical competence. Cognitive Development, 22, 165–184.Google Scholar
  41. Piccinini, G., & Scarantino, A. (2011). Information processing, computation, and cognition. Journal of Biological Physics, 37, 1–38.Google Scholar
  42. Przybylski, A. (2014). Electronic gaming and psychosocial adjustment. Pediatrics, 134(3), 34–56.Google Scholar
  43. Räsänen, R., Salminen, J., Wilson, A. J., Aunio, P., & Dehaene, S. (2009). Computer-assisted intervention for children with low numeracy skills. Cognitive Development, 24(4), 450–472.Google Scholar
  44. Rizzo, J., Wyatt, J., Humayun, M., DeJuan, E., Liu, W., Chow, A., Eckmiller, R., Zrenner, E., Yagi, T., & Abrams, G. (2001). Retinal Prosthesis: An encouraging first decade with major challenges ahead. Opthalmology, 108(1), 13.Google Scholar
  45. Rosenberg, H., Grad, H. A., & Matear, D. W. (2003). The effectiveness of computer-aided, self-instructional programs in dental education: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Dental Education, 67(5), 524–532.Google Scholar
  46. Safdar, A., Yousuf, M. I., Parveen, Q., & Behlol, M. G. (2011). Effectiveness of information and communication technology (ICT) in teaching mathematics at secondary level. International Journal of Academic Research, 3(5), 67.Google Scholar
  47. Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  48. Spivey, M. (2007). The continuity of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Spinath, B., Spinath, F., Harlaar, N., & Plomin, R. (2006). Predicting school achievement from general cognitive ability, self-perceived ability, and intrinsic value. Intelligence, 34(4), 363–374.Google Scholar
  50. Swanson, L., & Kim, K. (2007). Working memory, short-term memory, and naming speed as predictors of children’s mathematical performance. Intelligence, 35(2), 151–168.Google Scholar
  51. The Royal Society. (2011). Brain Waves Module 2: Neuroscience: Implications for education and lifelong learning (pp. 1–27). London: The Royal Society Science Policy Centre.Google Scholar
  52. Thompson, A. D., Simonson, M. R., & Hargrave, C. P. (1996). Educational Technology: A review of the research (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT).Google Scholar
  53. Veneri, D. (2011). The role and effectiveness of computer-assisted learning in physical therapy education: A systematic review. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 27(4), 287–298.Google Scholar
  54. Walsh, P. (2016). Cognitive extension, enhancement, and the phenomenology of thinking. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 3(3), 34–56.Google Scholar
  55. Wei, W., Yuan, H., Chen, C., & Zhou, X. (2012). Cognitive correlates of performance in advanced mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 157–181.Google Scholar
  56. Wu, C. H., Chen, Y. S., & Ta-Cheng Chen, T. C. (2018). An adaptive e-learning system for enhancing learning performance: Based on dynamic scaffolding theory. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education., 14(3), 903–913.Google Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mathematics, Science and Technology Education University of ZululandKwaDlangewzaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations