Development of personalized learning objects for training adult educators of special groups Maria Pavlis Korres and Elena Garcı´a-Barriocanal
Abstract Purpose – The paper seeks to provide personalized learning objects to adults’ educators of special groups (AESG) in a technology-enhanced learning environment.
Maria Pavlis Korres and Elena Garcı´a-Barriocanal are both based at the University of Alcala´, Alcala´ de Henares, Spain.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper presents a definition of specific criteria by which personalization of learning objects is effected. An analysis under the scope of adult education and multicultural education is performed, resulting in the development of tools and a clear path leading to more efficient personalization of learning objects of AESG within an e-learning environment. Findings – Personalization of learning objects for AESG can be achieved to a much greater extent when the element of compatibility between educator and learner defines content, preceding and mapping with presentation factors. Research limitations/implications – As the research is focused on AESG, the key notion of compatibility may not be applicable to adult educators of the general public. Practical implications – The paper offers a path through which learning management systems can provide improved personalization of learning objects addressed to AESG. Originality/value – The introduction of compatibility between educator and learner as the key element of the educator’s profile in order to provide personalized learning objects addressed to AESG opens up new territory. The paper is also useful to the developers of learning management systems addressed to any group with special attributes which strongly affect the learner’s profile. Keywords Adult education, E-learning, Customization Paper type Research paper
Introduction Diversity is a principal characteristic of all the expressions of life in the modern multicultural society, with the education area unquestionably included: educators and learners of different cultural backgrounds inevitably meet and interact in educational procedures (Freire, 1970; Brookfield, 1986, 1995; Gorski, 2001; Knowles, 1998; Mezirow, 1991; Rogers, 1996; Ndura, 2006). Additionally, the use of technology-enhanced learning is rapidly increasing and provides education with new potential (Beatty, 2002; Sadler-Smith and Smith, 2004; Ziegahn, 2001, 2005; Hew and Cheung, 2007; Montgomery, 1995; Conceicao, 2006; Smith, 2005). Today it is evident more than ever that in educational procedure, the single one-size-fits-all approach is dysfunctional and ineffective. The use of learner modeling to set up the learner’s profile and to direct the learning process according to this profile is one of the most current trends (Trandafir and Borozan, 2007, Wilson and Villa, 2002). Personalized e-learning is seen as a key element for next-generation educational programs (Brusilovsky, 2004), aiming to maximize the potential of each learner. More specifically, it offers the vision (and the opportunity) of dynamically composed courses which are tailored to an individual’s specific needs, prior knowledge, experience, computing environment, connectivity and communication preferences (Dagger et al., 2005).
DOI 10.1108/13673270810913649
VOL. 12 NO. 6 2008, pp. 89-101, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270
j
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
j
PAGE 89
The target profile definition is also critical from an engineering viewpoint. Once a collection of learning needs is available, the process of design starts (Sicilia, 2006). In this context, the design of a model for personalized training material for adult educators of special groups (AESGs) using technology-enhanced learning is the aim of this paper. The paper focuses on and analyzes the main elements that synthesize the profile of AESGs, so that these elements may be taken into consideration in the development of learning objects (LOs) addressed to them. Firstly, as the educators are adults, the principles of adults’ education must be followed in order to achieve the best educational outcome. Secondly, as educators are going to educate members of a special group, the type and the level of compatibility between educator and learner must be assessed in order to determine the content of the appropriate learning objects. Thirdly, the presentation of LOs must be adapted to the learning style, preferences, competencies, orientations and approaches to studying and learning of each educator. In order to facilitate the retrieval and reuse of the LOs and their most accurate description, LOs must be tagged according to IEEE LOM specifications[1], and particular extensions referring to the educator’s profile must be added to the already existing specifications. To avoid confusion, as the educators in this case are considered as learners, the term ‘‘educator’s profile’’ is used instead of ‘‘learner’s profile’’. Finally, taking into consideration all the aforementioned factors, a clear path is proposed which could be followed in learning management systems in order to provide personalized LOs to AESG.
Adults’ education: which principles must be followed in LO development? It was in 1968 in the USA that Malcom Knowles used the term ‘‘andragogy’’ in an article in adult leadership, and he has become known as the principal expert of andragogy, which is a set of assumptions about how adults learn (Knowles, 1970). Studying the literature concerning adults’ learning brings up the fact that adults as learners have specific characteristics that set them apart from children. As one might expect, these characteristics vary; however, there seems to be a general consensus in the literature (Brookfield, 1986; Knowles, 1990; Rogers, 1996, 2002; Jarvis, 1995; Cross, 1981) on some common characteristics that have an impact on learning efficacy and the overall classroom experience: B
adults participate in the learning process with specific intents, goals and expectations;
B
adults already have certain knowledge and experience as well as fixed perspectives;
B
adults have already developed personal styles of learning;
B
as adults they are bound to self-directed activities throughout their lives; and
B
adults have to deal with certain obstacles on their learning process.
These characteristics of adults as learners, as well as the requirements for effective adult learning, must be included in the development of LOs. The main requirements for effective adult learning are defined by taking into account the characteristics mentioned above and by looking into the bibliography (Noye and Piveteau, 1997; Courau, 1994; Jaques, 2000; Rogers, 2002; Cross, 1981). These requirements are: B
education is centered on the learner;
B
the active participation of the learners is both encouraged and intended; and
B
the creation of a learning environment based on communication, cooperation and mutual respect.
Taking into consideration all the aforementioned factors it is evident that the principles of adult education lead to personalization. In order to meet the needs, the interests and the expectations of educators, personalized LOs must be provided to them for their training.
j
j
PAGE 90 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 12 NO. 6 2008
‘‘ Studying the literature concerning adults’ learning brings up the fact that adults as learners have specific characteristics that set them apart from children. ’’
When the ways of learning which the educators prefer are taken into consideration, personalized LOs are designed. The same applies when the knowledge and the experiences of the educators are embraced in the development of the training material. Furthermore, the active participation of the educators in the transformation of the learning process, the use of active educational practices, the development of a critical way of thinking and the promotion of the ‘‘learning to learn’’ strategy will help create personalized paths beyond the short term of an educational course leading into lifelong learning. An early implementation of the above can be found at Clarke et al. (2003), who have proposed and implemented a model of an adaptive hypermedia system (AHS) to support dynamic personalized adult learning. They concluded that their AHS did succeed in its aim to provide for personalization of content in line with adult education learning factors ‘‘as it adapts content to the learner’s motivation factors, course aims, previous experiences and orientations to learning, learning styles and also allows for active participation’’, but they mention that some elements of adult education are missing, such as the ‘‘learner’s need to know’’ factor.
Educators of special groups With the term ‘‘special group’’ we define the social group whose characteristics (social, cultural, ethnic, linguistic, physical, etc.) cause social exclusion, marginalization and stigmatization to its members (i.e. immigrants, Gypsies, repatriated refugees, prisoners/ex-cons, ex-addicts, persons with special needs, etc.) (Pavlis-Korres, 2007). For the effective training of AESGs, the principles of adult education must be observed, focusing on the characteristics of adults as learners, the effective ways through which adults learn and the role of the educator (Jarvis, 1995; Knowles, 1984; Rogers, 1996). More importantly, educators of special groups must acquire sufficient knowledge of the characteristics of the special group they have to deal with. It is equally important that they become aware of their own attitudes towards the group, they reflect critically on these attitudes and seek transformation and improvement (Freire, 1970; Goffman, 1963; Gorski, 2001; General Secretariat of Adult Education, 1999; Quicke et al., 1990; Tomlinson, 1982). Recognition, knowledge, appreciation and respect of the diversity of the special group by the educators through critical reflection (Brookfield, 1995) as well as the transformation of the educators themselves (Gorski, 2001, Mezirow, 1991) are necessary for a multicultural educational environment that values diversity and appreciates differences to flourish (Cooper-Shaw, 1997). Acquisition of the essential knowledge about adults and special groups and, more importantly, the development of the desired skills, as well as the development and transformation of the required attitudes, are indispensable to all adults’ educators of special groups, regardless of the subject each educator is teaching.
Compatibility between educator and learner With the term ‘‘compatibility’’ we refer to the level of knowledge and positive attitude of the educator, as well as his/her acceptance of the special group (Pavlis Korres, 2007). The type of compatibility between AESGs and the respective learners varies in relation with the parameters that define the specific special group itself. These parameters can be social, cultural, ethnic, linguistic or physical (see Figure 1). For example a Gypsy teacher has high
j
j
VOL. 12 NO. 6 2008 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 91
Figure 1 Types of compatibility between educator and learner
cultural, linguistic and ethnic compatibility with a Gypsy adults group that he is going to teach, in contrast with a non-Gypsy educator who has never before met a Gypsy and is going to teach the same group. In reference to the term ‘‘compatibility’’ and its values, we must define the vocabulary to be used for each type: B
social compatibility defines the level of knowledge, of positive attitude and acceptance of the social status of the special group by the educator (values: very low, low, medium, high, very high);
B
cultural compatibility describes the level of knowledge, of positive attitude and acceptance of the culture of the special group by the educator (values: very low, low, medium, high, very high);
B
ethnic compatibility describes the level of knowledge, of positive attitude and acceptance of the ethnic identity of the special group by the educator (values: very low, low, medium, high, very high);
B
linguistic compatibility describes the level of knowledge, positive attitude and acceptance of the linguistic identity and specialties of the special group by the educator (values: very low, low, medium, high, very high); and
B
physical compatibility describes the level of knowledge, positive attitude and acceptance of the disabilities/impairments of the special group by the educator (values: very low, low, medium, high, very high).
Educators are not a homogenous group as they have different social, cultural, ethnic, linguistic and physical profiles. The educational needs of each one may vary considerably from those of others, even if they are teaching the same subject, or have a common educational background. Therefore, in order to maximize their individual teaching capacities, the level of compatibility of each educator must be assessed.
j
j
PAGE 92 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 12 NO. 6 2008
‘‘ It is evident more than ever that in education the single one-size-fits-all approach is dysfunctional and ineffective. ’’
The higher the level of compatibility between educator and learner, the more efficient his/her approach to the special group will be, regardless of the subject the educator is teaching. When we have to deal with a special group, knowledge of, positive attitude towards and respect of the characteristics of the group not only facilitate the communication between the educator and the learners – which is essential for the educational procedure to take place (Freire, 1970) – but also satisfy the safety, love, belonging and self-esteem needs of the learners for their social acceptance, and ensures that their identity is not threatened. The above needs have to be satisfied in order for the learners to be able to satisfy the cognitive needs (the desire to know and to understand) according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1970).
Defining the content of the learning objects By defining the level of compatibility between educator and special group we are in a position to deliver the appropriate educational material, so that each educator is supported and motivated in realizing the level of his/her compatibility with the special group, as well as in transforming and improving his/her compatibility. Failing to take into account the compatibility between educator and special group has the risk of either providing one educator with boring and oversimplifying material or providing another with complex and difficult material. In other words, this means that we might fail to match the educational material with the needs and the interests of each educator and negatively affect the educational outcome. On the practical side, information about compatibility could be assessed in various ways such as questionnaires, interviews, self-assessments, etc. A typical example is a questionnaire which has been prepared by the author for a case study concerning educators of Gypsies in Greece in order to assess the type and level of their compatibility. Key points of the questionnaire are: B
knowledge of and previous experience with the target group and its characteristics;
B
awareness of the existence of stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination in Greek society concerning special groups (including Gypsies); and
B
assessment of educators’ own stereotypes and prejudices concerning Gypsies.
In the design of the questionnaire many techniques based on social relations research methods have been used (Kidder, 1981), such as Likert-type scales, Gutman’s technique and the Bogardus Social Distance Scale. In order to serve the difficult task of measuring opinions, feelings, beliefs and attitudes, both closed and open-ended questions have been used. The questionnaire has been already pre-tested and a pilot application is ready to begin. The pre-test has indicated that the type and the level of compatibility among educators of Gypsies in Greece presents a wide range of diversity that must be taken into consideration in order to design appropriate LOs for each educator. For each of the five types of compatibility in combination with each of the five levels different LOs must be designed, corresponding to different content. The multitude of these LOs form the content repository in a learning management system from which any one could be retrieved and delivered to the respective educator. The assessment of the type and the level of compatibility of each educator is the key factor which defines the content of the appropriate LOs for this specific educator. Therefore, personalization of each LO is based on the content, which is dominated by the compatibility between educator and learner.
j
j
VOL. 12 NO. 6 2008 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 93
One important factor that should not be neglected is that the compatibility level of each educator in the respective type will change (mainly improving) with the use of the personalized LOs. Although this does not necessarily affect the content repository, an effective intelligent monitoring system that tracks these changes through repetition of the assessment procedure could ensure that the appropriate personalized LOs will always be provided. It is also important that in case of multiple LOs corresponding to the same type and level of compatibility the sequence in which these are provided to the educator must be defined by selecting the proper strategy (Cranton, 2000, Wiley, 2000) A schematic display of the above procedure can be seen in Figure 2.
Defining the presentation of the learning objects Educators differ from one another in a wide variety of ways, including the types of instruction to which they respond best (learning styles), their competencies, the ways they approach their studies (orientations to studying, and approaches to learning), their attitudes about the nature of knowledge and their role in constructing it (levels of intellectual development). Personalized LOs aim to correspond to the parameters mentioned above, which define to a smaller or greater extent the presentation of the LO in order to lead to a more effective and efficient learning procedure.
Figure 2 Delivery of the appropriate LO to the educator based on the assessment of his/her compatibility
j
j
PAGE 94 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 12 NO. 6 2008
‘‘ Educators of special groups must acquire sufficient knowledge of the characteristics of the special group they have to deal with. ’’
In contrast, the design of LOs with only a universal type of learner in mind could end up in the learner being frustrated and possible failure of the educational process (Martinez, 2000). In a traditional class it is almost unachievable for the educator to balance all the individual needs of the learners concerning content and the presentation. In an e-learning environment, tailoring the LOs according to the learners’ profiles is a complex but feasible task. Hothi and Hall (1998) believe that AHS have the potential to break through traditional educational barriers by allowing the tailoring of applications to specific user needs and requirements. As Trandafir and Borozan (2007) state: ‘‘personalization is an advanced stage in the eLearning systems evolution’’. Clarke et al. (2003) present several forms of adaptation that an AHS could provide, such as adaptive navigation, structural adaptation, adaptive presentation and historical adaptation. Exploiting one of the existing learner model standards, for example the IMS Learner Information Packaging[2], PAPI Learner (IEEE P 1484.2)[3], or using one of the existing instruments such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicatorw (MBTI), the Kolb Learning Style Inventoryw (McBer and Company, Boston, MA), or the Index of Learning Stylesw (ILS) of Felder and Solomam, can provide additional support for effective instructional design. In order to show the way in which the various parameters affect the presentation of LOs, a key example has been chosen: learning styles. Educators as learners have different learning styles. Learning styles are ‘‘characteristic cognitive, affective and psychological behaviors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environment’’ (Felder and Brent, 2005). The concept of learning styles has been applied to a wide variety of learners’ attributes and differences. Some learners are comfortable with theories and abstractions; others feel much more at home with facts and observable phenomena; some prefer active learning while others lean towards introspection; some prefer visual presentation of information and others prefer verbal explanations. No learning style is either preferable or inferior to another, but is simply different with different characteristics, strengths and weaknesses (Felder and Brent, 2005). A goal of instruction should be to equip students with the skills associated with every learning style category, since they will need all of these skills and competencies to function effectively as professionals. The main factors which affect presentation of a LO and the formation of a presentation repository in a LMS are depicted in Figure 3.
Hierarchy and mapping between content and presentation in providing personalized LOs addressed to AESG As already stated, the key element for the personalization of LOs addressed to AESGs is the compatibility between educator and learner, which dictates the content of the respective LOs. This also defines a strict hierarchy between content and presentation, where content is clearly dominant over presentation. In other words, LOs addressed to AESGs must be primarily personalized in relation to the type and level of compatibility of the educator before any further personalization can be effected through presentation formed by its various parameters. For example, it is the LO created for AESG with low cultural compatibility that will be mapped with presentation parameters to create further personalized LOs matching the different learning styles of educators and not vice versa. Educators with the same level and type of
j
j
VOL. 12 NO. 6 2008 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 95
Figure 3 Factors that affect the presentation of a learning object
compatibility would still benefit by using the same LO, even if they have quite different learning styles, while a LO perfectly matching the educator’s learning style but not corresponding to his/her compatibility type and level would be quite useless. Needless to say, that this hierarchy does not at all undervalue the importance of presentation, as the LO matching both the educator’s compatibility and learning style will greatly enhance the educational procedure. Therefore, taking as a base the content repository, based on the type and the level of compatibility, a respective presentation repository of LOs will be created according to the factors which affect the presentation, in order to appeal to different learning style preferences, competencies, orientations, etc.
Developing the necessary metadata in order to describe the personalized LOs To facilitate retrieval, reuse and interoperability, learning objects have to be described with metadata according to the IEEE LOM specifications and the appropriated extensions and vocabularies. Such an extension has been proposed in order to describe the important element of compatibility (Pavlis-Korres, 2007) in ‘‘category 9.1. classification. special’’ attributes as shown in Table I. The proposed values for each type of compatibility are: very low, low, medium, high, very high. On the other hand, Conlan et al. (2001) have proposed a generic metadata element for describing the adaptivity of an e-learning resource. They proposed a new element ‘‘adaptivity’’ as an optional part of the education element, which may contain an arbitrary number of adaptivity type elements. Each of them contains the information needed for realizing a certain type (or aspect) of adaptivity. The ‘‘adaptivitytype’’ element has two attributes, a mandatory name, and an optional ref. The name attribute denotes the type (or aspect) of adaptivity described by the current adaptivitytype element. The values for the name attribute are restricted by recommending – a best practice list. Some examples of the contents of this list are ‘‘objectives’’, ‘‘learning style’’, ‘‘competencies. required‘‘, or ‘‘competencies. tested‘‘.
j
j
PAGE 96 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 12 NO. 6 2008
Table I The new element of compatibility 9.1. Classification Purpose
Special attributes
Compatibility between educator and learner Cultural Ethnic Social linguistic Physical
A path to be followed in a LMS in order to provide personalized LOs to AESGs Taking into consideration the principles and factors laid down in the previous sections the design of a LMS aiming to provide personalized LOs to AESG should follow a specific path. The proposed path shown in Figure 4 provides a typical example.
Figure 4 A path for providing personalized LOs to AESGs
j
j
VOL. 12 NO. 6 2008 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 97
Information about the learner is the key by which a personalized LO will be provided. The gathering of information can be effected either by the system itself or externally. Information on compatibility and on factors that affect presentation can be collected simultaneously or separately, but they should be stored individually. The LOs comprising the content repository are designed in correspondence with the types and levels of compatibility emerging from the assessment of educators’ compatibility profiles. Based on the various LOs in the content repository, further personalization can be provided by an adaptive engine which will combine with the attributes deriving from the educators’ learning profiles (learning styles, competencies, etc.) found in the presentation repository and map onto personalized LOs forming the personalized LOs repository. The resulting LOs could be presented as a number of pieces of candidate content, each of which would teach the same content but in a different manner (Conlan et al., 2003). In this step attributes like ‘‘very low cultural compatibility of the educator’’ could map onto attributes like ‘‘the learner responds better to visual explanations’’. In parallel with the development of the personalized LOs, each LO should be described with the existing IEEE LOM and with the proposed extensions, in order to facilitate retrieval of the LO from the repositories and exchange among LMS. In a dynamic environment, like an AHS, the system could be able to update during the educational procedure the educator’s profile and provide the respective updated personalized LOs (Wilson and Villa, 2002). A fully developed LMS should also cater for the selection of the sequence of LOs whenever applicable. A schematic display of the model path proposed is shown in Figure 4. For reasons of clarity the updating procedure on educator’s profile and the sequence selection of LOs are omitted.
Conclusion In the development of learning objects for AESG within an e-learning environment it is important to adapt LOs to the requirements of each educator. In the design of LOs for AESG the principles of adult education must be followed, and both the content and presentation of each LO must be personalized according to the educator’s profile. The educator’s profile is the essential component in personalized learning via a technology-enhanced system that is able to adapt to the educator. The essential element of the educator’s profile, in the case of AESG, is the type and level of compatibility. Personalization of LOs addressed to AESG is effected primarily based on content (i.e. educator’s type and level of compatibility) while further personalization is effected by mapping LOs in the content repositories combined with presentation parameters onto repository personalized LOs. A model path for a relevant LMS is provided. A pilot application is expected to test the fundamentals of the above proposal, starting with a questionnaire for the assessment of needs for the compatibility of adults’ educators of Gypsies in Greece.
Notes 1. See http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/files/LOM_1484_12_1_v1_Final_Draft.pdf 2. IIMS LIP Specification, available at www.imsproject.org/ 3. EEE LTSC PAPI Specification, available at: www.ieee.org/
References Beatty, K. (2002), ‘‘Describing and enhancing collaboration at the computer’’, Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, Vol. 28 No. 2, available at: http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol28.2/beatty.htm
j
j
PAGE 98 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 12 NO. 6 2008
Brookfield, S. (1986), Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning, Open University Press, Buckingham. Brookfield, S. (1995), Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Brusilovsky, P. (2004), ‘‘Adaptive navigation support: from adaptive hypermedia to the adaptive web and beyond’’, Psychology Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 7-23. Clarke, L., Wade, V., Conlan, O. and Dagger, D. (2003), ‘‘Personalization for adult e-learning – an AHS approach’’, paper presented at E-Learn 2003, World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare and Higher Education, Phoenix, AZ. Conceicao, S. (2006), ‘‘Faculty lived experiences in the online environment’’, Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 26-45. Conlan, O., Hockemeyer, C., Lefrere, P., Wade, V. and Albert, D. (2001), ‘‘Extending educational metadata schemas to describe adaptive learning resources’’, Hypertext ’01: Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, ACM, New York, NY, pp. 161-2. Conlan, O., Lewis, D., Higel, S., O’Sullivan, D. and Wade, V. (2003), ‘‘Applying adaptive hypermedia techniques to semantic web service composition’’, Workshop on Adaptive Hypermedia, WWW2003, The 12th International World Wide Web Conference, Budapest. Cooper-Shaw, C. (1997), ‘‘Critical issue: educating teachers for diversity’’, available at: www.ncrel.org/ sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/presrvce/pe300.htm (accessed March 2007). Courau, S. (1994), Les outils d’excellence du formateur, 2nd ed., ESF editeur, Paris. Cranton, P. (2000), Planning Instruction for Adult Learners, Wall & Emerson, Toronto. Cross, K.P. (1981), Adults as Learners, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Dagger, D., Conlan, O. and Wade, V. (2005), ‘‘eLearning without borders – a support framework for reusing educational strategies’’, Proceedings of e-Ducation Without Borders, available at: www.cs.tcd. ie/Owen.Conlan Felder, R.M. and Brent, R. (2005), ‘‘Understanding Student Differences’’, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 57-72. Freire, P. (1970), The Pedagogy of the Oppressed: Herder and Herded, Continuum Books, New York, NY. Goffman, E. (1963), Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Gorski, P. (2001), ‘‘Transforming myself to transform my school’’, available at: www.edchange.org/ multicultural/papers/edchange_10thinls.html (accessed March 2007). General Secretariat of Adult Education (1999), ‘‘Educational curriculum for the training of Gypsy Mediators’’, European Initiative: Employment/Integra 1998-2000, General Secretariat of Adult Education, Greek Ministry of Education, Athens. Hew, K. and Cheung, W.S. (2007), ‘‘An exploratory study on the use of asynchronous online discussion in hypermedia design’’, Nanyang Technological University Singapore, available at: www.usq.edu.au/ electpub/e-jist/docs/Vol6_No1/an_exploratory_study_on_the_use_.htm (accessed May 2007). Hothi, J. and Hall, W. (1998), ‘‘Applying adaptive hypermedia in education’’, available at: www.ld.ics.uci. edu.pub/kanderso/ht98demos/hothi.html Jaques, D. (2000), Learning in Groups, Kogan Page, London. Jarvis, P. (1995), Adult and Continuing Education. Theory and Practice, Routledge, London. Kidder, L. (1981), Research Methods in Social Relations, Holt-Saunders International Editions, Philadelphia, PA. Knowles, M. (1970), The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy, Book Company, Cambridge. Knowles, M. (1984), Andragogy in Action. Applying Modern Principles of Adult Education, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA.
j
j
VOL. 12 NO. 6 2008 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 99
Knowles, M. (1990), The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species, revised edition, Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX. Knowles, M. (1998), The Adult Learner, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, TX. Martinez, M. (2000), ‘‘Designing learning objects to personalize learning’’, The Instructional Use of Learning Objects, available at: http://reusability/org/read Maslow, A. (1970), Motivation and Personality, 2nd ed., Harper & Row, New York, NY. Mezirow, J. (1991), Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Montgomery, S. (1995), ‘‘Addressing diverse learning styles through the use of multimedia’’, Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, Vol. 1, pp. 3a213-3a221. Ndura, E. (2006), ‘‘Reflections of teachers’ culture in the classroom: beginning to see and hear’’, Electronic Magazine of Multicultural Education, Vol. 8 No. 2. Noye, D. and Piveteau, J. (1997), Guide pratique du formateur, INSEP Editions, Paris. Pavlis-Korres, M. (2007), ‘‘On the requirements of learning object metadata for adults’ educators of special groups’’, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Metadata and Semantics Research (MSTR 2007), Corfu. Quicke, J., Beasley, K. and Morrison, C. (1990), Challenging Prejudice through Education, Falmer Press, London. Rogers, A. (1996), Teaching Adults, Open University Press, Buckingham. Rogers, A. (2002), ‘‘Adult learners: characteristics need, learning styles’’, in Kokkos, A. (Ed.), International Conference for Adults’ Learning, Metexmio, Athens (in Greek). Sadler-Smith, E. and Smith, P. (2004), ‘‘Strategies for accommodating individuals’ styles and preferences in flexible learning programmes’’, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 395-412. Sicilia, M.A. (2006), ‘‘Learning about whisk(e)y: an example of multi-view learning object/learning activity design’’, paper presented at the III Simposio Pluridisciplinar Sobre Objetos y Disen˜os de Aprendizaje Apoyados en la Tecnologı´a, Oviedo. Smith, R. (2005), ‘‘Working with difference in online collaborative groups’’, Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 182-99. Tomlinson, S. (1982), A Sociology of Special Education, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Trandafir, I. and Borozan, A-M. (2007), ‘‘e-Learning systems personalization – new requirements and solutions’’, available at: www.ici.ro/sinpers/doc/art-ie-1 (accessed 15 February 2008). Wiley, D.A. (2000), ‘‘Learning object design and sequencing theory’’, PhD thesis, Department of Instructional Psychology and Technology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. Wilson, R. and Villa, R. (2002), ‘‘Survey on methods and standards of student modelling’’, University of Stathclyde, Glasgow, available at: www.crmpa.it/diogene/archive.html Ziegahn, L. (2001), ‘‘Talk about culture online: The potential for transformation’’, Distance Education, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 144-50. Ziegahn, L. (2005), ‘‘Critical reflection on cultural difference in the computer conference’’, Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 56, pp. 39-64.
Further reading Hayes, J. and Allinson, C.W. (1996), ‘‘The implications of learning styles for training and development: a discussion of the matching hypothesis’’, British Journal of Management, Vol. 7, pp. 63-73. Schmeck, R.R. (1988), Learning Strategies and Learning Styles, Plenum Press, New York, NY.
About the authors Maria Pavlis Korres obtained a university degree in Political Sciences in Athens (1981). She has working with adults’ education since 1981 in the Greek Ministry of Education. She has published several books concerning Gypsies and their education and has participated in research by the Council of Europe and the University of Ioannina (Greece) on Gypsies’
j
j
PAGE 100 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 12 NO. 6 2008
education. Since 2005 she has been a PhD student at the University of Alcala´ in Spain working on the development of e-learning material for adults’ educators of special groups. Maria Pavlis Korres is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
[email protected] Elena Garcı´a-Barriocanal obtained a degree in Computer Science from the Pontifical University of Salamanca in Madrid (1998) and a PhD from the Computer Science Department of the University of Alcala´. From September 1988 to February 1999 she worked as a Lecturer in the Computer Languages and Information Systems Department of the Pontifical University, and in 1999 she joined the Computer Science Department of University of Alcala´ as Assistant Professor. In 2001, she became an Associate Professor at the Computer Science Department of the University of Alcala´, and is a member of the Knowledge and Soft Computing group of this University. Her research interests mainly focus on topics related to human-computer interaction and knowledge representation; concretely she actively works on ontological aspects in usability and accessibility and supervises several PhD works in these areas.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
j
j
VOL. 12 NO. 6 2008 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 101
