Sep 8, 2012 - of study. When examining a given curriculum, we should expect to a find a reasonable number of ... referred to as the Competition-Based Learning (CBL) model. ..... as: the act or process of trying to get or win something (such as a prize or a higher level of success) .... Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol.
International journal of information and communication technology education: an official publication of the Information Resources Management Association 10(1):1-13
· January 2014DOI: 10.4018/ijicte.2014010101
DRAFT COPY
Competition-Based Learning: A Model for the Integration of Competitions with Project-Based Learning using Open Source LMS Ghassan Issa, Petra University, Jordan Shakir M. Hussain, Petra University, Jordan Hussein Al-Bahadili, Petra University, Jordan
ABSTRACT In an effort to enhance the learning process in higher education, a new model for CompetitionBased Learning (CBL) is presented. The new model utilizes two well-known learning models, namely, the Project-Based Learning (PBL) and competitions. The new model is also applied in a networked environment with emphasis on collective learning as well as collective outcomes. The new model, which is referred to as CBL, provides educators with an alternative solution to overcome many of student's deficiencies associated with traditional learning practices; such as lack of motivation, lack of self esteem, insufficient practical and real-life experience, and inadequate team work practices. The new CBL model makes a clear distinction between PBL and competitions and CBL. It avoids the disadvantages of competitions, while at the same time gaining from the many benefits of PBL. Identification features of CBL, components of CBL, as well as advantages are presented. An open source Learning Management System (LMS), namely, Moodle is used for the implementation of a networked environment to support CBL. Keywords: Project-Based Learning; Competitions; Competition-Based Learning; Networked Learning; Collective learning; Constructivism; Group Learning; Open Source Learning Management System.
INTRODUCTION There are several challenges facing students and teachers in higher education (Hanna 2000; Scott 2000). Such as: the rapid advancements in technology including new means of communication and social networking, lack of students self motivation, and lack of preparation of students to meet professional working environments. These are only few of the many challenges that need to be carefully addressed by researchers and educational institutions (Kolb 2005, Martin-Dunlop and Fraser 2007, Lewenstein 2009). Employers prefer graduates who not only posses technical skills, but who are capable of working with team members, have the logic of problem solving, who can work with clients, and who are familiar with project management skills including budgeting, and time management. To overcome deficiencies in higher education, researchers have been exploring different forms of learning models hoping to achieve the Indented Learning Outcomes (ILOs) specified in a program of study. When examining a given curriculum, we should expect to a find a reasonable number of ILOs which focus on the concept of motivation, self esteem, problem solving, team work, solving real-world problems, competition, and innovation (Alkhatib et al 2011, Issa et al 2011, Issa et al 2010). Consequently, a number of learning models have been developed and in-use for different learning levels, such as: PBL (Ruenglertpanyakul et al 2012, Rahman et al 2012, Erdem 2012, Willard & 1
International journal of information and communication technology education: an official publication of the Information Resources Management Association 10(1):1-13
· January 2014DOI: 10.4018/ijicte.2014010101
DRAFT COPY
Duffrin 2003, Mifflin 2003, Howard 2002, Thomas 2000), competition (Cantador & Conde 2010, Lawrence 2004, Yu 2002, Lam et al 2001, Ediger 2000), Networked Learning (De Laat 2006, Banks et al 2003), collaborative learning (De Laat & Simons 2002), and active learning (Fasli & Michalakopoulos 2005). The most widely models are PBL, competition, and Networked Learning, and they will be discussed later on. However, as we shall discuss later on that all of these models have their own advantages and disadvantages, and we believe that they short from providing satisfactory learning process. This gives us the motive to look for a more satisfactory model. Therefore, in this paper, we propose a new learning model aiming at enhancing the learning process and boosting the levels of learning outcomes. The new model utilizes two well-known learning models, namely, PBL and competitions, and uses them in a networked environment; therefore, it is referred to as the Competition-Based Learning (CBL) model. We believe when combined with PBL, competitions often enhance the learning experience for learners, improve learning satisfaction, and give learners a flavor of real-life business competitions. Furthermore, the course ILOs and any other objectives of the learning process can be successfully satisfied through the application of the CBL model. However, when applying CBL, there is a need to distinguish between curricula and non-curricula activities and thus, to distinguish between PBL, competitions and CBL.
LITERATURE REVIEW Project-Based Learning (PBL) PBL is a learning model that has been recognized as an effective teaching method for many years (Thomas 2000; Chard 1998; Howard 2002; Mifflin 2003). It is centralized around projects that are defined as complex real-world tasks, based on challenging problems that require design, problem solving, decision making, and creativity. Students are expected to work on such projects over extended period of times with minimal directions from the teacher. Thomas (2000) presented five distinguishing features (criteria) for PBL in an attempt to address the confusion with what constitutes a PBL and what does not. The five criteria are centrality, driving question, constructive investigations, autonomy, and realism. These five criteria lead to the following understanding of PBL: Projects are part of the curriculum in which students learn core concepts. Projects are not used for merely illustration nor are used to enrich students with knowledge outside the curriculum. The above criteria distinguish between an exercise and a project, the problem to be investigated must be complex enough to drive students to inquire, build new knowledge, and resolve conflict. The mere application of already learned knowledge or skills is not considered a project but rather an exercise. In PBL, students must feel autonomous without directions and direct supervision from the teacher who really is considered just as a facilitator. Projects should not have a predetermined outcome nor follow a predetermined path. A project must resemble a real-world problem that is authentic (not simulation) capable of being transformed and implemented. In project studies, solving distinct problems, studying in a group and finding solutions might attract student attention. In projects, students might acquire knowledge and learn and implement concepts and principles. They also have to plan a study and monitor their progress as well as evaluate solutions. All these factors indicate the benefits of PBL to the learning process. However, the literature contains some studies that argue that there are some problems with this approach even though it increases learning and motivation. According to many researchers (Ruenglertpanyakul et al 2012, Rahman et al 2012, Erdem 2012., Ozden et al 2009, Alacapinar 2008), these problems resulted from the fact that projects were developed without making the necessary evaluations for 2
International journal of information and communication technology education: an official publication of the Information Resources Management Association 10(1):1-13
· January 2014DOI: 10.4018/ijicte.2014010101
DRAFT COPY
motivation and knowledge, the selected problems were not appropriate for students and the class administration was inadequate. Competitions A competition can be defined as a contest between individuals or groups to reach a common goal that cannot be shared. There are hundreds of local and international competitions attracting students at all levels of higher educational institutions. For example, some of the well-known competitions in the Information Technology area may include: ACM Collegiate Programming Contest, Microsoft Imagine Cup, Yahoo Hack U Competition, and Oracle ThinkQuest. While some researchers in the field may view competitions in education negatively, many others think that competitions often bring out the best in individuals and motivate students to achieve more in school (Fulu 2007, Fasli and Michalakopoulos 2005, Lawrence 2004). Competitions can enhance student's motivations, self-esteem, and learning outcomes. Cooperative goals make students take better care of their responsibilities and tasks for the sake of their groups (Cantador & Conde 2010, Yu 2002, Lam et al 2001, Ediger 2000). Many researchers state that competition damages the learning process by forcing students to focus on goals instead of on the process itself, and also argue that the stress to which students are exposed has negative effects (Lam et al 2001). Our experience with competitions proves that both positive and negatives arguments regarding competitions are true. Despite the many well-known advantages of competitions, we find that: Competitions do not focus on the learning process nor do they satisfy the ILOs of the curricula. Assessment of individual students is usually not carried out, nor there are any indicators on how much students learn. Many participating students become so focused on the competition; so they lose interest in their regular course work. Many participating students performed very low in some of their regular courses due to their involvement in a competition. Many participating students show symptoms of hyper competiveness. These problems and others have proven that there is a serious need to take matters in a more structured and more systematic way. There is a need to distinguish between curricular and noncurricular activities and thus, to distinguish between competitions and learning. Networked Learning The latest advancements in computer and network technologies, Internet, social media, mobile computing, and the wide spread and wide acceptance of such technologies by the average college student, must trigger an alert to most educators to re-think, and to develop new models of learning and teaching. People all over the globe are sharing information and news, discussions, negotiations, thus stressing the social nature of learning. Networked Learning is a form of learning that uses what is called "Network Environment" (connections), which facilitates collaboration between a group of learners; learners and teachers; educators; a learning community and its learning resources, so that participants can extend and develop their understanding and capabilities in ways that are important to them, and over which they have significant control (Hodgson et al, 2012, Banks et al. 2003). Thus a learning environment is basically a physical environment that facilitates social interaction which allows learning to be distributed over space and time. From this concept, it is argued that the relationship between the design of a technology and the use of that technology is a central concern for Networked Learning (Jones 2012, De Laat 2006).
3
International journal of information and communication technology education: an official publication of the Information Resources Management Association 10(1):1-13
· January 2014DOI: 10.4018/ijicte.2014010101
DRAFT COPY
Constructivism and Social Constructivism The essence of constructivist theory is how educators view learners. The concept of constructivism emphasizes the student as being the “active learner”, playing a central role in mediating and controlling learning and most of the learning environments are technology-based in which learners are engaged in meaningful interactions. Constructivist learning environments also supports project based curriculum as an alternative to traditional teaching practices (Jonassen 1999). This means that curriculum design and implementation must take into consideration the different backgrounds of learners and must get the learners to actively participate in projects to solve real-world problems, instead of relying on the traditional classroom presentations. Social constructivism extends constructivism into social settings, wherein groups construct knowledge for one another, collaboratively creating a small culture of shared artifacts with shared meanings. When one is immersed within a culture like this, one is learning all the time about how to be a part of that culture, on many levels (Moodle 2012). Collective Learning De Laat (2006) presented a very important concept distinguishing between the process of learning, and learning outcomes, in learning environments that are based on groups, PBL, and Networked Learning. He considered these types of learning as collective learning", and he differentiated between learning through social interaction, which may be present in team-work, and collective outcomes. The main issue is that the outcomes of learning must be collective not individualized. This means that team members must explicitly strive for common learning outcomes. De Laat suggested that collective outcomes can be achieved in three different ways: 1. When groups or organizations reflect upon the common implicit outcomes of learning. 2. When they reflect on or plan common explicit learning outcomes. 3. When they define common plans for externalization in the group or the organization.
RESEARCH GOAL AND QUESTIONS Through a continuous observation of students' performance, we have recognized the following: 1. High percentage of drop-out rate amongst first and second year Information Technology students. 2. Clear degradation of students' performance in courses that require problem solving and programming skills. 3. Excellent performance of students participating in national and international competitions, achieving top ranks locally and internationally. 4. The latest change in students' attitudes towards learning, requiring more freedom of choice, to become active learners, and to be more autonomous. Questions that guided our work in this paper are: 1.
4
Can we embed competitions in courses to enhance student's learning and to achieve ILOs in an environment that is more appealing to future student generations?
International journal of information and communication technology education: an official publication of the Information Resources Management Association 10(1):1-13
2.
· January 2014DOI: 10.4018/ijicte.2014010101
DRAFT COPY
Can we develop a model to guide us in the implementation of competitions in the class room, thus gaining the most of their benefits, while reducing negative side effects?
THE NEW CBL MODEL To formalize a model of CBL, and to derive a definition which satisfies the objective of enhancing the learning process and learning outcomes, we rely on previous work on PBL (centrality, driving question, constructive investigations, autonomy, and realism), Networked Learning, collective learning, and constructivism theory. For the definition of CBL to be valid, it must satisfy a set of constraints as follows: 1. CBL must be accomplished in groups. Competitions that are based on individuals are to be avoided to reduce the negative aspects of competitions such as selfishness, stress, hypercompetiveness. 2. Constructivism and autonomy: Team members are the active players. No immediate interference from educators or mentors. 3. Curriculum based problems: It is very important that project requirements and objectives which constitute the competition are drawn directly from the curriculum. 4. New knowledge must be relevant to the curriculum: The main objective of the competition is that student learn and acquire new knowledge relevant to the curriculum. 5. Problems to be implemented in the competition must be multi-disciplinary, challenging, authentic, and resemble real-life problems. 6. Collective learning outcomes: it is important for both team members, as well as educators to know that there would be an assessment for each individual in the team. Therefore, the ILOs should be determined by the educators and must be presented to students ahead of time. 7. Transparency: Using the social networked environments, team members can be aware of intermediate results of the competition as they happen. 8. Control and monitor: To ensure learning to take place and to avoid negative aspects of competitions, team members must work under controlled environment, and must be monitored from a distance at all times. Students' autonomy is to be respected as long as they work within the controlled boundaries. Given the above mentioned constraints, CBL can be defined as follows: A constructivist approach to learning in which competition is used as stimulus for the maximization of the ILOs specified in a given course or curriculum, while team members participate in a project under controlled environment. The above definition covers the major constraints discussed earlier. It begins with describing CBL as a "Constructivist" approach to learning, which implies that learners are viewed as coming from different backgrounds, and that they play an active role in learning. The definition then attempts to constraint the role of "competition" as a stimulus for maximizing the efforts on behalf of the learners, and as doing so, maximizing the learning process. Competition must be executed within a controlled environment to avoid any negative aspects associated with competitions. The definition also stresses on the fact that learning should cover ILOs already specified in a course or curriculum. Components of CBL Given the constraints and definition of CBL, we now present a set of components required for the application of CBL (Figure 1): 5
International journal of information and communication technology education: an official publication of the Information Resources Management Association 10(1):1-13
· January 2014DOI: 10.4018/ijicte.2014010101
DRAFT COPY
1. Course outline based on a specific curriculum: The selection of a course from within a curriculum for the application of CBL is a very important step to insure that ILOs relate directly to the curriculum. The course syllabus could be modified to suit this type of learning but without deviating away from the objectives of the course. The selected course could be of any level, but must be relevant to the size and difficulty of the project. It is worth mentioning here, several higher educational institutions who share similar courses can participate in the selection of the course and the design of the entire competition, thus removing the boundaries between institutions and allowing for more cooperative work. 2. A clear set of ILOs must be derived from the course syllabus and aligned with the overall ILOs for the curriculum. These ILOs work as a guide in the process of constructing the project which will be the basis for the competition. 3. Project requirements and specification: Project requirements must be defined in a way that its completion would fulfill the ILOs. Requirements must resemble a real-world problem which clearly defines the type of new knowledge to be learned, whether this new knowledge comes at the core of the curricula, and what existing knowledge is necessary for students to get involved in the project. 4. A set of well-defined competition rules: As with any competition, a set of well-defined rules must be applied. These rules could include project themes, winning criteria, ranking procedures, violations, policies, best practices, and so on. 5. A set of external incentives or a reward system: The distinguishing feature of CBL from other forms of learning is that participants share one ultimate common goal of winning the competition and receive a reward. The reward or incentives are to be chosen carefully to be a driving force for the participation of students. 6. A socially networked environment (competition environment): Competitions are social events by nature. They require the availability of a well connected environment by which participants can communicate with their team members, other teams, mentors, organizers, and audience. 7. Evaluation committees or judges: Judging committee could be selected from unbiased individuals who could be internal or external to the institution depending on the size of the competition. The judging committee evaluates projects based on project specifications and competition rules. A criteria is usually applied which looks at the project from a competition point of view with disregard to the ILOs or the curriculum. 8. Assessment method for ILOs: For CBL to be considered a successful model for learning, actual learning must take place. We stress on the fact that is collective learning have taken place. This means that every individual in the team must have learned what was intended for him/her to learn. Assessing the learning outcomes of team members is not necessarily a difficult task; the teacher can easily determine that through interviews or presentations, or even using traditional examinations. Questions can be easily drawn from the objectives, and from the ILOs of the course.
6
International journal of information and communication technology education: an official publication of the Information Resources Management Association 10(1):1-13
· January 2014DOI: 10.4018/ijicte.2014010101
DRAFT COPY
Figure 1. Components of CBL Curriculum Course Selection
Curriculum ILOs
Selected Course Course Objectives
Course ILOs
Project Design Authentic Problem
Real World
Challenging
Multi-Disciplinary
Competition Rules
Incentives
Project 1
Academic Assessment Evaluate project completeness, and correctness Evaluate team members roles Evaluate learned Knowledge for each individual team member Evaluate efforts exerted and problem difficulty Evaluate systems analysis and design methods used Evaluate presentation and documentation Assign final grade for each student
7
Judging Committee
Project 2
Networked
Project 3
Competitive Evaluation Does the project meet criteria and rules? Evaluate project as an end product Evaluate project business plan and economic efficiency Evaluate presentation skills Rank the project Determine winning projects Present awards
International journal of information and communication technology education: an official publication of the Information Resources Management Association 10(1):1-13
· January 2014DOI: 10.4018/ijicte.2014010101
DRAFT COPY
Expected Benefits of CBL Using the CBL model, participating students are expected to gain the following benefits: Exposure to real life problems in a setting that requires team work and responsibility. Stimulating student's competitiveness, creativity, responsibility, and self esteem. Enhancing problem solving, organization, and planning skills. Teach students how become active learners. Enforcing the concept of on-time delivery. Exploring student's hidden talents and skills. Improving technical, soft, and entrepreneurial skills, and the ability to apply those skills in the implementation and presentation of projects. Enhancing the learning process of concepts and topics required by curriculum. Assessment of team work as well as individual work and learning activities. Preparing students for participation in national and international competitions.
Competitions vs. CBL According to the definition of the CBL model and the CBL criteria presented earlier, we can clearly distinguish between competitions and CBL. Merriam Webster's Dictionary defines a competition as: the act or process of trying to get or win something (such as a prize or a higher level of success) that someone else is also trying to get or win: the act or process of competing, a person or group that you are trying to succeed against: a person or group that you are competing with. Clearly the above definition does not include learning as part of the definition but rather focuses on the acts of winning or succeeding. CBL on the other hand, focuses on learning as an outcome while capitalizing on the acts of winning and succeeding as stimulus for increasing and enhancing the process and outcomes of learning. The differentiation between these two concepts is extremely important for educators to avoid the many disadvantages of competitions while at the same gain the most from CBL (Table 1). Table 1. Distinguishing between competitions and CBL Competitions Usually driven and organized by industry Serves the agenda of industry vendors Educational institution may have limited control over contents of competition Does not relate to curriculum No focus on collective learning Goal is winning No individual assessment for team members
CBL Usually driven and organized by educational institutions Seeking collective learning outcomes Project relates to curriculum ILOs Alternative approach to traditional learning Administered in a controlled environment Each team member receives a final grade based on assessment Projects are evaluated and ranked
Preparation of Students for Competitions A student, who attends educational programs that embed CBL in the curriculum, will gain extensive benefits which include gaining sufficient technical and soft skills, self motivation, self esteem, and 8
International journal of information and communication technology education: an official publication of the Information Resources Management Association 10(1):1-13
· January 2014DOI: 10.4018/ijicte.2014010101
DRAFT COPY
self control. This student can easily fit within a group, capable of social interaction, and can assume responsibility to deliver the required project on time. We stress on the fact, that educational programs must strictly follow the constraints and components of CBL presented earlier in this paper. Programs must be carefully designed, applied in a controlled environment, and properly evaluated and assessed. We also argue that students who successfully pass such programs will become excellent candidates for representing the institution in future national and international competitions. Institutions as well as students can safely get engaged with national and international competitions, while showing a great degree of readiness and preparation. A student who went through CBL programs would have enough experience to safely participate in competitions, and would be resilient to many of the problems associated with such competitions including tension, stress and hyper competitiveness. We refer to such a student as competitionenabled student. This student should be considered as an asset to the institution. Figure 2 illustrates the process of producing a competition-enabled student who will be ready to participate in realworld situations and external competitions very effectively. Setting-up the Environment for Networked Learning Any competition requires a way of communication with competitors. Whatever the tool being used, it must allow for private and public communication to take place. News, announcements, enquires, submission of work, collaboration between team members, project assessments, grading, live chatting, forums, and emailing. There are several e-learning tools that could be used for the implementation of a networkedenvironment for competitions and CBL. Fortunately, many of such tools are Open Source and are available for immediate deployment, and implementation. One of such tools is Moodle 2.02 LMS (Moodle 2012). The latest versions of Moodle have added several new features to support social networking, and have added better flexibility for customization to an extent where you can use it to virtually build any interactive website. Moodle is a global development project designed to support a social constructionist framework of education. One of the features in Moodle that fits the needs to build online competitions and PBL is the "Workshop" Module. Workshops module is designed for peer-assessments within a structured review/feedback/ grading framework. All major activities (phases) in a workshop are controlled by the teacher or administrator. Phases include set-up phase, submission phase, assessment phase, grading phase, and closing the workshop. With a minor customization to systems roles, we can easily implement a PBL, CBL, or even a scientific conference submission and reviewing system.
9
International journal of information and communication technology education: an official publication of the Information Resources Management Association 10(1):1-13
· January 2014DOI: 10.4018/ijicte.2014010101
DRAFT COPY
Figure 2. Advantages of CBL, resulting in what's called competition-enabled student Input
Application of CBL to a course with specific ILOs drawn from Curriculum
Output
Controlled Environment Technical Skills
Real World Problems
Soft Skills
External Competitions TeamWork
Student
Un-Controlled Environment
Entrepreneurial Skills
Creativity
Competition enabled student
Team member
Autonomy
Responsibility
Self Esteem
Competitiveness
Self Motivation
We have used Moodle successfully in several projects including: a LMS to upload courses and to communicate with students, online examinations and placement tests, monthly student trivia competition, senior-project submission and evaluation system, automation of ITSAF Regional Project Competition, faculty evaluation system, fully automated scientific conference system, namely, IT-DREPS 2013 (www.it-dreps.org), and few others. We also used Moodle to automate a leading competition for senior projects. Briefly, we will highlight some of the features which can be useful for the implementation of CBL:
10
Full customization of user interface. User registration: Moodle provides a variety of methods for creating users, ranging from manual registration, Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP), and online registration with email conformation. Different types of roles: Moodle has a set of predefined roles (student, teacher, administrator, etc.); however, we can define any number of new roles which can be easily customized to fit any competition. For example, guests, students, mentor, judging committee, coordination committee, administrators, and so on). Enrolment keys based on role: Competing groups can be assigned different keys. Online submission: Projects and other requirements can be uploaded directly by team members, at specific times. There is also a total control over who uploads, who can view uploaded material, number of files to be uploaded, etc.
International journal of information and communication technology education: an official publication of the Information Resources Management Association 10(1):1-13
· January 2014DOI: 10.4018/ijicte.2014010101
DRAFT COPY
Time-based questions: Questions or assignments can be opened or closed at a certain time, and can be assigned specific trial time. Competition timing can follow the timing zones of competitors, or can be fixed based on the server clock. Multi-language: Support for multi-language including Left-To-Right (LTR) and Right-To-Left (RTL) features. Workshop facilities: A complete workshop features allowing online submission, assignment of reviewers, peer review, and online review results. Different views depending on roles: A nice feature to control what to see and who can see what. This is useful for example to allow competition judges to see certain announcement, yet to prevent students from seeing these announcements. Social networking and news: Includes chatting, forums, news, up-coming events, and, instant messaging. Anti-plagiarism add-ons: Free or paid anti-plagiarism modules can be added.
Figure 3 shows the organization of Moodle into layers. Users in each layer have specific assigned roles with different set of privileges suitable for PBL or CBL. Figure 3. Networked environment suitable for CBL using Moodle with Workshop Module Public Layer
Teams Layer
No Logging in Required Access to General
Information only Public Announcements Online Registration News Forums
Moodle 2.x With Workshop Module Competition Administration (Administration Layer)
Requires logging in assigned student role Communication Between Team members Update Team Members Profiles Communication with Mentors Uploading projects Create custom roles Specify methods of registration and authentication Assign roles to registered users Create workshop
Teacher/Mentor Layer Communication between Teachers and team members View team submission Monitor team progress Monitor deadlines. Communication with Judges
Assign reviewers to projects Switch between competition phases Generate reports
Judges Layer Communication between Judges and Admin Online review of Projects Assign points to projects Announcements Forums Calendar
Create evaluation forms Create pointing system for ranking Full access to other Moodle features
FUTURE WORK Comparative studies should be applied to various courses using traditional approaches, PBL, and CBL. Statistics and surveys must be gathered hoping to arrive at a set of general standards for the application of CBL. Accordingly, CBL constraints and requirement are to be refined. Cooperation with other educational institutions in the development and application of selected courses in a networked environment is to be explored. Once these standards are completed, it will be followed by an intensive training program for educators, and finally CBL will be imbedded in the selected courses from within the curriculum.
11
International journal of information and communication technology education: an official publication of the Information Resources Management Association 10(1):1-13
· January 2014DOI: 10.4018/ijicte.2014010101
DRAFT COPY
Work on CBL and PBL will be expanded to include the process of innovation and entrepreneurship. Projects will compete not only to receive an award, but ultimately to be considered for an entrepreneurship opportunity. Currently, the authors are experimenting with the use of the innovation process as an alternative tool for learning. The concept to be applied is to consider innovation as a learning tool rather than just as an outcome of a good and sound educational system.
CONCLUSIONS This paper presented a new learning model, namely, the CBL model that combines PBL and competitions. Differentiation between competitions and CBL was illustrated showing the benefits of using CBL as compared to competitions only. Constraints and components of CBL were presented. The new CBL model takes advantages of competitions, PBL, and networked environment, while avoiding the disadvantages of competitions. Using this model, educators can systematically transform traditional course-work into CBL in an effort to enhance students learning experience, and to boost the outcomes of learning in a manner that is compatible with the objectives of the curriculum. To implement a networked environment suitable for CBL, this paper highlighted the application of open source LMS such as Moodle 2.x which virtually can be customized to satisfy all the needs required for such learning model and environment.
REFERENCES Alacapinar, F. (2008). Effectiveness of Project-Based Learning. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 32, pp. 17-34. Banks, S., Goodyear, P., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (2003). Introduction to the special issue on Advances in Research on Networked Learning. Instructional Science, Vol. 3, pp. 1-6. Cantador, I., & Conde, J. M. (2010). A simple e-learning system based on classroom competition. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6383/2010, pp. 488-493. Chard, S. (1998). The project approach: Developing the basic framework (Practical guide 1). Scholastic Inc. Publisher, USA. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED420362 on 7th September 2012. De Laat, M. (2006). Networked Learning. PhD Thesis. University of Nijmegen, Netherland. De Laat, M. F., & Simons, P. R. J. (2002). Collective learning: Theoretical perspectives and ways to support networked learning. Vocational Training: European Journal, 27, 13-24. Ediger, M. (2000). Competition versus cooperation and pupil achievement. College Student Journal, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 14–22. Erdem, E. (2012). Examination of the effects of project based learning approach on students’ attitudes towards chemistry and test anxiety. World Applied Sciences Journal, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 764-769. Fasli, M., & Michalakopoulos, M. (2005). Supporting active learning through game-like exercises. In: 5th IEEE International Conference of Advanced Learning Technologies, pp. 730-734 Fulu, I. (2007). Enhancing learning through competitions. School of ICT, Ngee Ann Polytechnic. Retrieved from http://www.learnerstogether.net/ enhancing-learning-through-competitions/213 on 8th September 2012.
12
International journal of information and communication technology education: an official publication of the Information Resources Management Association 10(1):1-13
· January 2014DOI: 10.4018/ijicte.2014010101
DRAFT COPY
Ghazi, A., Issa, G., Turani A., Daoud, D., & Zaroor, M. (2011). Incorporating innovative practices in software engineering education. Presented at the IEEE Education conference (EDUCON’11), Amman-Jordan, April 4-6. Hanna, D. E. (2000). Higher Education in an Era of Digital competition: Choices and Challenges. Atwood Publishing. Hodgson, V., McConnell, D., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2012). The Theory, Practice and Pedagogy of Networked Learning. In Exploring the Theory, Pedagogy and Practice of Networked Learning (Editors: Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld, Vivien Hodgson, & David McConnell), Chapter 17, pp. 291-305. Howard, J. (2002). Technology-enhanced project-based learning in teacher education: addressing the goals of transfer. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 343-64. Issa, G., Hussain, S. M., & Al-Bahadili, H. (2011). A framework for building an interactive satellite TV based m-learning environment. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp.19–24. Issa, G., Hussain, S. M., & Al-Bahadili, H. (2011). Unified m-learning model through interactive education satellite: A proposal for an Arab Homeland education satellite. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Computing, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 26-33. Jonassen, D. (1999) Learning with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective. Prentice-Hall. Jones, C. (2012). Networked Learning, Stepping Beyond the Net Generation and Digital Natives. In Exploring the Theory, Pedagogy and Practice of Networked Learning (Editors: Lone DirckinckHolmfeld, Vivien Hodgson, & David McConnell), Chapter 3, pp. 27-41. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 193-212. Lam, S., Yim, P., Law, J., & Cheung, R. (2001). The effects of classroom competition on achievement motivation. In: 109th Annual Conference of American Psychological Association. Lawrence, R. (2004). Teaching data structures using competitive games. IEEE Transactions on Education, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 459-466. Lewenstein, B. V. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Retrieved from http://www.cornell.edu/outreach/docs/informal-science-learning.pdf on 8th September 2012. Martin-Dunlop C., & Fraser, B. J. (2007). Learning environments and attitudes associated with an innovative science course designed for prospective elementary teachers. Int J Sci Math Educ 6:163–190 Mifflin, H. (2003). Project-based learning: Background knowledge & theory. Retrieved from: http://www .college.hmco.com/education/pbl/background.html on 7th September 2012. Moodle (2012). Moodle Documents: Philosophy. http://www.docs.moodle.org/23/en/ Philosophy on 8th September 2012.
Retrieved
from
Ozden, M., Aydin, M., Erdem, A., & Ekmekçi, S. (2009). Evaluation of teachers’ views about project based science teaching. Electronic Journal of Social Science, Vol. 8, No. 30, pp. 92-102. 13
International journal of information and communication technology education: an official publication of the Information Resources Management Association 10(1):1-13
· January 2014DOI: 10.4018/ijicte.2014010101
DRAFT COPY
Rahman, S., Yasin R. M., & Yassin, S. F. M. (2012). Project-Based Approach at Preschool Setting. World Applied Sciences Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 106-112. Ruenglertpanyakul, W., Vicheanpant, T., Chanchaona, S., & Nantawisarakul, T. (2012). The project based learning for develop student’s literacy and working skill in rural school. European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 518-531. Scott, P. (2000). Globalization and higher education: Challenges for the 21st Century. Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 3-10. Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Retrieved from http://www. bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL_Research.pdf on 7th September 2012. Willard, K., & Duffrin, M. W. (2003). Utilizing project-based learning and competition to develop student skills and interest in producing quality food items. Journal of Food Science Education, Vol. 2, Issue 4, pp. 69–73. Yu, F. Y., Chang, L. J., Liu, Y. H., & Chan, T. W. (2002). Learning preferences towards computerized competitive modes. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 341-350.
14
