Volume 5, Issue 6, November 2016, Pages: 126-135
Received: Nov. 2, 2016;
Published: Nov. 3, 2016
Views 5572 Downloads 344
Bed Prasad Dhakal, Central Department of Education, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal
Lekhnath Sharma, Open and Distance Education Centre, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal
Mathematicians generally prefer less on the use of Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) in teaching mathematics at university thinking that this mode of learning can reduce the rigor of mental thinking needed to learn mathematics. This study tries to explore whether VLE promote engaged and interactive learning environment to master’s students. It further draws critically the major opportunities and challenges that the teacher/students experienced while using VLE. This is an experimental case study, a part of a longitudinal study in CDED. Intervention is the learning platform Moodle with e-pedagogy blending with conventional mode, starting with more conventional less e-pedagogy and latter increasing the amount of e-pedagogy and lessening the conventional. VLE as case was introduced in teaching Projective Geometry among thirty-six students of Master's in Education (Mathematics). The instrument used in this study were baseline and end line survey questionnaire, observation checklist, interview-guideline and archive analysis. The results showed that students were found more interactive in learning through VLE being engaged emotionally, socially, and cognitively. Among different activities and resources in Moodle as VLE, quiz came out effective activity and videos as most preferred resource for the students of all types- fast as well as show learners. Personal computing device, internet connectivity, and teachers’ efficiency in using ICTs tools, maximizing teacher’s presence in learning support were found as major challenges in using VLE. Despite the challenges, the major opportunities that VLE contributed in F2F classes were to improve study habits, make study more active, provides opportunity to learn and re-learn and to clarify the concepts. This gives the implication that the F2F courses need to be designed integrating VLE in an appropriate way.
Bed Prasad Dhakal,
Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) in Mathematics Education, Education Journal.
Vol. 5, No. 6,
2016, pp. 126-135.
L. Ogrim, M. Johannesen, B. P. Dhakal, and S. Pangeni, “Implementing online learning in Nepalese Teacher Education: Faculty use of Learning Management Systems,” 2015.
P. Khanal, “Making virtual learning interactive and meaningful: Implications of constructivism for adult students,” Int. J. Res. Stud. Educ., vol. 3, no. 1, Jan. 2014.
R. B. Kozma, “Comparative analysis of policies for ICT in education,” in International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education, Springer, 2008, pp. 1083–1096.
A. Kohn, “One-Size-Fits-All Education Doesn’t Work,” Alfie Kohn, 2001.
P. Freire, Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder, 1970.
T. Petty and A. A. Farinde, “Investigating Student Engagement in an Online Mathematics Course,” J. Online Learn. Teach., vol. 9, no. 2, Jun. 2013.
S. A. Reese, “Online learning environments in higher education: Connectivism vs. dissociation,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 579–588, Sep. 2015.
R. Howard, “Attention and other 21st century social media literacies,” Educ. Rev., vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 14–24, 2010.
G. Siemens, “Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age,” 2005. [Online]. Available: http://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm. [Accessed: 12-Jan-2016].
B. Hoskins, “Demand, Growth, and Evolution,” J. Contin. High. Educ., vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 57–60, Feb. 2011.
A. F. Mayadas, J. Bourne, and P. Bacsich, “Online education today,” Science, vol. 323, no. 5910, pp. 85–89, 2009.
R. Benson, Online learning and assessment in higher education: a planning guide. Oxford: Chandos Publishing, 2010.
C. Perkins and E. Murphy, “Identifying and measuring individual engagement in critical thinking in online discussions: An exploratory case study,” Educ. Technol. Soc., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 298–307, 2006.
J. W. Creswell, Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2014.
N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, Eds., The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2005.
K. A. Knafl, “Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 532 pp., $28.00 (hardcover),” Res. Nurs. Health, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 73–74, 1991.