Hoe gebruiken leerkrachten hun ELO?
32
De Smet Cindy Studiedag afstandsonderwijs Hogent Campus Mercator – 22/12/2011 Hoe gebruiken de leerkrachten hun ELO?
description
Hoe gebruiken leerkrachten hun ELO? Cindy De Smet onderzoekt binnen haar doctoraat het gebruik van de Elektronische Leeromgeving (ELO). In een eerste luik zocht ze een antwoord op de volgende 2 vragen: 1) op welke manier gebruiken leerkrachten de ELO, 2) welke factoren zorgen ervoor dat leerkrachten een ELO gebruiken. Op basis van vragenlijstonderzoek bevroeg ze 505 leerkrachten secundair onderwijs. De resultaten leverden niet alleen antwoorden op de vooropgestelde vragen, maar ook praktische inzichten voor leerkrachten en directies. Het onderzoek werd gepubliceerd in Computers & Education. Download deze paper via: http://hogent.academia.edu/CindyDeSmet
Transcript of Hoe gebruiken leerkrachten hun ELO?
De Smet CindyStudiedag afstandsonderwijs
Hogent Campus Mercator – 22/12/2011
Hoe gebruiken de
leerkrachten hun ELO?
About• Lecturer media,
Ghent University College, Faculty of Teacher Training
• Ph.D.-student,Department of Education, Ghent University
• The Research Fund of University College Ghent financially supports this research.
@drsmetty
LMS
LMS Market Lifecycle Curve
Bron:Sage Road Solutions
LMS market in Flanders
Secondary education
1) Survey 20092) The educational network mostly determines the LMS used
University
45% 55% Dokeos/Chamilo
Blackboard
1) Data based on the official student numbers (2009).2) The LMS used is determined by the 6 Flemish
associations between universities and university colleges
3) Most LMS are “Branded”
University Colleges
27% 73%
Dokeos/Chamilo
Blackboard
The Flemish teacher
De Smet, C., & Schellens, T. (2009). ELO’s in het Vlaams
secundair onderwijs: nieuw of alweer achterhaald. Advies
& Educatie, 26, 12–14.
LMS experience
No experience 19%
1 year 10%
2 years 24%
3 years 22%
4 years 20%
5 years or more 15%
Blackboard: 1997
Moodle: 1999
Outside the LMS
Secondary education:
• 69% uses learning objects found on the internet or specialized content sites: (using KlasCement.net, Google.com…)
• 52% uses software and applications outside the the LMS (wikispaces.com, blogsoftware, Google documents, Facebook, Netlog….)
LMS Study
This study aims to understand the reasons behind the technology acceptation of learning management systems (LMS) by secondary school teachers and investigates the instructional use of the LMS.
Methods
Perceived Ease of Use(gebruiksgemak)
Perceived Usefulness(bruikbaarheid)
Use
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
1) Beliefs2) Self-reported use3) Predicts 40% of a systems’ use
Informational Use Communicational Use
Five levels of LMS interaction by Hamuy and Galaz (2010), Silvio et al. (2004)
Results
• Survey (N=505)
• Construct validity
– Inf + Com use: measured by 12 items
• IBM SPSS: exploratory factor analysis
• AMOS 17: confirmatory factor analysis
– Other variables:
• IBM SPSS: exploratory factor analysis
• Measurement validity
– Cronbach’s alpha & correlation matrix
• Model testing: AMOS 17
Discussion
Conclusion
• 46% of the variance in informational use, 27% in communicational use
• Instructional use: further explored and refined
• Focus on secondary school teachers, an understudied group
Conclusions
• Perceived ease of use is the most important factor (in this research) to predict the instructional use of the LMS.
• As soon as a teacher gets more advanced in using the LMS, perceived usefulness becomes more important.
• This suggests that when a teacher wants to use an LMS, the ease of use of the system will be the first consideration, probably followed by his or her perception of the system’s performance.
Conclusion
• Technical support is important for every LMS-user, regardless his experience level.
• Positive effect of personal innovativeness on preceived ease of use.
• Administrative use was expected to be a prerequisite for interactive use and the data confirms this assumption.
Limitations
• Future research should explore other variables that may have an effect on instructional use, as the current models explain maximum 46%.
• This research did not include software or applications outside the institution’s LMS
• Log files
