Cyber education: towards a pedagogical and heuristic learning

Abstract

The constant and rapid investments in Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have allowed the growth in the quality of information response available within the internet which requires considering and addressing the physical, financial, socio-demographic, cognitive, design, institutional, political and cultural types of access. The main purpose of this paper is to revise actual and new emerging ICTs and the use of its application tools in Education which is dominated by the linear paradigm in interaction and information as interactivity is not being accepted as a guiding principle. The concept of e-learning rests on the idea that pedagogy technologically sustained includes enough knowledge with regard to the wishes of learning processes, which are a process of mind embedded in a culture and also challenges and not just concepts. Learning is a process that humans have been trying to master for many centuries. However, there are so many different ways to do the process that it is sometimes very hard to determine which one is the best of a given situation. One such type of learning is heuristic learning. Through this method the students should discover things for themselves, through problem solving, inductive reasoning, or simply by trial and error. Discovering things by yourself, knowing from experience rather than books. In many situations it seems that heuristic learning is the most suitable when one really believes in something when one experiences it himself. That is what heuristic learning is really all about. This type of learning model, in an online format, is tailored to the adult learner who typically has a sense of self-direction related to individual interests, goals, strengths, and previous experience. Also the pedagogical theory of connectivism was born as a response to very fast ICT development which strongly influences education and which approach to problem solving is based on the use of simulation animations, making students change parameters and verify or seek the problem solving, applying their need of intuitive searching by the heuristic method; information is assigned by image without the application of long texts. After a series of simulation experiments, the students verify their results with a calculation and a real experiment.

References

1. Ahmad, A., Basir, O., and Hassanein, K. 2004. Adaptive User Interfaces for Intelligent E-learning: Issues and Trends. In Proceedings of the The Fourth International Conference on Electronic Business (ICEB 2004). Beijing.
2. Ally, M. 2011. Best Practices and Standards for e-Learning. Paper presented at 2nd International Conference on e-Learning and Distance Learning. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Available at http://eli.elc.edu.sa/2011/sites/default/files/slides/%20%D8%A2%D9%84%D9%8A.pdf
3. Silva, N., Costa, G., Prior, M., and Rogerson, S. 2013. The Evolution of E-learning ManagementSystems: An Ethical Approach. In K. Beycioglu (Ed.), Ethical Technology Use, Policy, and Reactions in Educational Settings (pp. 93--106). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. DOI=10.4018/978-1-4666-1882-4.ch008
4. Anderson, S. 2008. Effective Integration of Sound Pedagogy in an Online Format. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2008 (pp. 3579--3586). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Available at http://www.editlib.org/p/28882.
5. Blaschke, L. M. 2012. Heutagogy and Lifelong Learning: A Review of Heutagogical Practice and Self-Determined Learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13, 1.
6. Coelho, J. D. 2011. Do Plano Tecnológico à Agenda Digital: Cinco anos de tomadas de posição do grupo de alto nível da APDSI. Edições Sílabo.
7. Costa, G., and Silva, N. 2010. Knowledge versus content in e-learning: A philosophical discussion! Information Systems Frontiers, 12, 4, 399--413.
8. Costa, G., Silva, N., and Fonseca, T. 2012. Moral reasoning in knowledge authoring: an e-learning 4.0 analysis! In S. Abramovich (Ed.), Computers in Education- Volume 1 (pp. 135--154). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
9. Dabbagh, N. 2005. Pedagogical models for e-learning: a theory based design framework, International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 1, 1, 25--44
10. Felder, R., Woods, D., Stice, J., and Rugarcia, A. 2000. The Future of Engineering Education, Part 2. Teaching Methods that Work. Chemical Engineering Education 34, 1, 26--29.
11. FH JOANNEUM 2014. AdeLE (Adaptive e-Learning with Eye-Tracking): Theoretical Background, System Architecture and Application Scenarios. FH JOANNEUM University, Austria. Available at http://researchanddesign.fh-joanneum.at/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/adele_folder_en_0.pdf
12. Franceschi, K., Lee, R., and Hinds, D. 2000. Engaging E-Learning in Virtual Worlds: Supporting Group Collaboration. In: R. H., Sprague, Jr. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, Big Island: IEEE Computer Society Press.
13. Giannakos, M. 2010. The Evaluation of an E-learning Web-based Platform. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Supported Education. CSEDU '10. INSTICC Press, 433--438.
14. Gibson, D., and Grasso, A. 2008. An enterprise simulation platform for education: Building a world game for pre-college students with Microsoft ESP. Microsoft white paper. Available at http://www.microsoft.com/education/highered/whitepapers/simulation/simulationplatform.aspx#games
15. Glazer, R. 1998. Measuring the knower: Towards a theory of knowledge equity. California Management Review, 40, 3, 75--94.
16. Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., and Turoff, M. 1995. Learning Networks, A Field Guide to Teaching and Learning Online. Cambridge MA. The MIT Press
17. Hase, S., and Kenyon, C. 2007. Heutagogy: A child of complexity theory. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 4, 1, 111--119.
18. Hase, S. 2009. Heutagogy and e-learning in the workplace: Some challenges and opportunities. Impact: Journal of Applied Research in Workplace E-learning, 1, 1, 43--52
19. IsoDynamic 2001. e-Learning Whitepaper. Available at http://www.isodynamic.com/web/e_learn.htm
20. Kardan, A. A., Ebrahim, M, A., and Imani, A. M. 2014. A new Personalized Learning Path Generation Method: Aco-Map. Indian J. Sci.Res. 5, 1, 17--24.
21. Khan, B. 2001. A framework for e_learning. Available at http://www.elearningmag.com/elearning/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=5163
22. Kearsley, G. 2000. New Developments in Learning. Available at http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley
23. Lera, E., and Mor, E. 2007. The joy of e-learning: redesigning the e-learning experience. Project PERSONAL (TIN 2006-15107-COZ-01), Barcelona
24. Levy, G., and Razin, R. 2014. A simple Bayesian heuristic for social learning and groupthink. London School of Economics and Political Science. Working paper. Available at http://personal.lse.ac.uk/levyg1/learning.pdf
25. Lukman, R., and Krajnc, M. 2012. Exploring Non-traditional Learning Methods in Virtual and Real-world Environments. International Forum of Educational & Society (IFETS). Educational Technology & Society, 15, 1, 237--247.
26. Maison, K. B. 2007. A case for professional studies in education for teachers in higher educational institutions. In D. E. K. Amenumey (Ed.), Challenges of education in Ghana in the 21st century (pp. 248--256). Accra: Woeli Publishing Services.
27. Martin, E., and Webb, D. 2002. Is E-learning good learning? The ethics and equity of e-learning in higher education (pp. 49--60). Melbourne: Victoria University: Equity and Social Justice.
28. Monahan, T., McArdle, G., and Bertolotto, M. 2008. Virtual reality for collaborative e learning. Computers and Education, 50, 1339--1353.
29. Omwenga, E. I; Waema, T., and Wagacha, P. W. 2004. A model for introducing and implementing e-learning for delivery of educational content within the African context, African Journal of Science and Technology, 5, 1, 34--46.
30. Piaget, J. 1964. Cognitive development in children: The Piaget papers. In R. E. Ripple & V. N. Rockcastle (Eds.), Piaget rediscovered: A report of the conference on cognitive studies and curriculum development (pp. 6--48). New York: Cornell
31. Pivec, M., Trummer C., and Pripfl, J. 2005. Eye-Tracking Adaptable e_learning and Content Authoring Support. University of Applied Sciences FH JOANNEUM, Graz, Austria. Informatica, 30, 83--86.
32. Quéau, P. 1999. O Desafio do Século XXI -- Religar os Conhecimentos: Cybercultura e Info-etica. Estomologia e Sociedade. Instituto Piaget.
33. Rigopoulos, G., and Karadimas, N. V. 2006. Increasing Ethical Awareness of IT Students through Online Learning. In Proceedings of the 6^th WSEAS International Conference on Applied Informatics and Communications, 265--269.
34. RIPPLES Model 2015. Available at http://designplanet.wikispaces.com/RIPPLES+Model
35. Romiszowski, A. 2003. O futuro de e-learning como inovação educacional: fatores influenciando o sucesso ou o fracasso de projetos. Associação Brasileira de Educação a Distância. Revista Brasileira de Aprendizagem Aberta e a Distância, S. Paulo, Novembro, 2003.
36. Rosnay, J. 1999. O Desafio do Século XXI -- Religar os Conhecimentos: Conceitos e Operadores Transversais. Instituto Piaget.
37. Santos, B. S. 1988. Um Discurso sobre a Ciência (A Discourse on the Sciences). Porto Afrontamento.
38. Silva, N., Costa, G., Rogerson, S., and Prior, M. 2009. Knowledge or content? The philosophical boundaries in e-learning pedagogical theories! In Proceedings of the m-ICTE 2009 (pp. 221--225). Lisbon. Portugal
39. Silva, N., Alvarez, I., and Rogerson, S. 2010. Glocality, diversity and ethics in distributed knowledge to Higher Education. In G. Costa (Ed.), Handbook of Ethical and Social Issues in Knowledge Management: Organizational Innovation (pp. 131--159). Hershey: IGI Global.
40. Silva, N., Rogerson, S., and Stahl, B. C. 2010. Ethicultural sensitivity in e-learning: discussing Lusíada Universities empirical findings. In Proceedings of the ETHICOMP 2010 (pp. 500--511). Tarragona. Spain.
41. Silva, N., Costa, G., Prior, M., and Rogerson, S. 2011. The evolution of E-learning Management Systems- an ethical approach. International Journal of Cyber Ethics in Education, 1, 3, 12--24.
42. Surry, D. W., Ensminger, D. C., and Haab, M. 2005. A model for integrating instructional technology into higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 2, 327--329. DOI=10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00461.x
43. der Have, V., and Nienke, S. 2013. The Right to Development and State Responsibility can States be Held to Account? Symposium held in honor of the tenth anniversary of the Prince Claus Chair in Development and Equity. Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No. 2013-23;. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2251838
44. Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
45. Woodill, G. 2004. Seven trends in corporate eLearning. White paper. Operitel Corporation. Available at www.operitel.com.
46. Yahya, Y., and Yusoff, M. 2005. The perception of a learning object model, its characteristics and metadata: From theoretical perspectives. In Proceedings of the E-Learn Conference. Vancouver, Canada. 24--28 October 2005.
47. Yahya, Y. and Yusoff, M. 2008. Towards a comprehensive learning object metadata: Incorporation of context to stipulate meaningful learning and enhance learning object reusability. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 4, 13--48. Available at http://www.ijello.org/Volume4/IJELLOv4p013-048Yahya185.pdf

Index Terms

• Social and professional topics

  • Professional topics

    • Computing profession

      • Codes of ethics