Reviews and Trends
Student-Centered and Dynamic Interfaces that Enrich Technical Learning for Online Science Learners: A Review of the Literature Susan A. Killian, Dennis E. Beck, Corliss A. O’Bryan, Nathan Jarvis, Edgar C. Clausen, and Philip G. Crandall
Abstract: Communicating complex scientific and technical information presents a challenge for food science educators. The most efficient learning occurs when all senses are engaged, one reason that many educators believe that scientific principles are best taught with hands-on laboratory experiences. Today there are many challenges to the continuation of these “wet labs” including the cost of building the labs as well as equipment, materials, and personnel to run them. Many current e-learning technologies are based on 2-dimensional delivery systems, and are often inadequate to provide a substitute for a laboratory exercise. However, recent advances in technology have evolved to more closely reflect the kinds of learning experiences that students typically have in a laboratory class. This review describes the role of these emerging technologies as teaching tools for educators, with the clear understanding that similar concepts can be utilized by management of technical teams in the work place.
Introduction Communicating complex scientific and technical information in the classroom and in the work place is a challenge (Nakhleh and others 1995) that is often exacerbated by the technical nature of the subject material and the abstract nature of the classroom dynamic (Mills and Treagust 2003). It has long been recognized that the most efficient learning occurs when the technical communicator is able to engage all of the learners’ senses (Gardner 1993) and this need for total engagement is one reason science classroom instruction is often supplemented with hands-on laboratory experiences. Scientific laboratory classes are vitally important because they provide opportunities for students to have hands-on interactions and experiences that reinforce classroom-based lecture courses. Although laboratory experiences offer unique learning advantages, such as the opportunity to personally experience the investigative process, there are also distinct disadvantages. For example, laboratories are limited by time constraints that can hinder true understanding of experimental concepts and procedures (Yang and Heh 2007). While electronic learning (e-learning) initiatives have allowed educational institutions to realize significant improvements in efficiencies in the delivery of course objectives, delivering adequate laboratory experiences via e-learning technologies has been MS 20131540 Submitted 6/11/2013, Accepted 15/2/2014. Authors Killian, O’Bryan, Jarvis, and Crandall are with Dept. of Food Science, Univ. of Arkansas, 2650 Young Ave, Fayetteville, AR, 72074, U.S.A. Author Beck is with Dept. of Curriculum and Instruction, Univ. of Arkansas, Peabody Hall, 736 W. Maple St., Fayetteville, AR, 72071, U.S.A. Author Clausen is with Dept. of Chemical Engineering, Univ. of Arkansas, Bell Engineering Center, 800 W. Dickson St., Fayetteville, AR, 72701, U.S.A. Direct inquiries to author Crandall (E-mail:
[email protected]).
more challenging and slower to develop. However, recent technological advances may have the potential to provide adequate laboratory experiences to students taking online science courses. Many current e-learning technologies are based on 2dimensional (2D) delivery systems. That is, they are mostly text and graphics driven in many cases, with the most advanced technologies providing video streaming. However, advances in technology have now evolved to incorporate interactive, 3-dimensional (3D) experiences that more closely reflect the kinds of learning experiences that students typically have in a laboratory class. These student-learning experiences can be designed to include game-based dynamic learning that adapts to students’ interactions. In other words, these technologies are becoming increasingly student-centered and provide instructors with tools that they need to convey difficult technical subject matter in an effective and efficient manner (Rivers and Vockell 1987; Parker 2003). The purpose of this review is to describe the role of these kinds of emerging technologies as teaching tools for educators, with the clear understanding that similar concepts can be utilized by management of technical teams in the work place. By incorporating both theoretical and practical information into electronically delivered laboratory experiences, more efficient and effective learning may occur and be more readily assessed (Baltra 1990; Baxter 1995; Borkowski and others 1997; Perry and Ballou 1997; Grasha and Yangarber 2000; Steinberg 2000; Pange 2003; Sun and others 2008). First, the electronic delivery of laboratory experiences has the potential to expand learning opportunities for more students at lower cost, due to increased accessibility of students anywhere at any time (Geban and others 1992). This is an attractive prospect in an era of tightening teaching budgets, the particularly costly nature
R C 2014 Institute of Food Technologists
doi: 10.1111/1541-4329.12034
Vol. 13, 2014 • Journal of Food Science Education 47
Review of online learning technology . . . of running science laboratories with shared resources (Geban and others 1992; Wolf 2010), and increased safety concerns (Raineri 2001; Sun and others 2008). Second, in addition to gaining cost and instructor efficiencies, it is important that educators can readily assess the effectiveness of electronically delivered laboratory courses. At minimum, electronically delivered laboratory courses must be as effective at teaching the objectives as traditional laboratory courses, if there is to be widespread adoption of this interactive technology. While efficiencies are very likely to be gained, they cannot come at the expense of meeting student-learning goals. This review will begin by defining and briefly describing elearning. As technologies have emerged over time, the meaning of e-learning has also evolved. Next, this review will differentiate between simulation and gaming platforms in e-learning. Learning theory will be discussed, with an emphasis on experiential learning theory, cognitive load theory, and learner motivation. Principles of game design, project management tools, and popular and promising electronic platforms for delivering laboratory experiences will be provided.
E-Learning Although there is no consensus on the definition of e-learning (Harasim 2000), e-learning has generally been described as the delivery of educational objectives using digital technology (Benson and others 2002; Clark 2002; Nichols 2003). Given the cost reductions realized from delivering educational objectives via the Internet (Geban and others 1992), it is not surprising that many businesses, educators, and educational institutions are seeking to increase their e-learning offerings. The widespread adoption of computers, cell phones and other mobile devices, and social networking Web sites has provided an affordable and efficient way to deliver scientific information to a broader range of students or employees, while minimizing the time requirements of the instructor (Boase and others 2006, Dutton and Helsper 2007; Salaway and others 2007). While there seems to be little doubt about substantial gains in efficiencies as a result of e-learning, there are debates about its effectiveness. For some types of courses, lecture-based science courses in particular, e-learning has become a way for students to actively engage, where they otherwise may have been bored or distracted (Squire 2003) with the course material, leading to gains in learning, skill, and mastery (McKinney 1997; Herriot and others 2003; Huckstadt and Hayes 2005; Lewis and others 2005; Al-Dujaily 2006). These gains, however, are observed mostly when the course objectives are limited to the delivery of knowledge-based information or when face-to-face lecture-based courses are converted to project-based online learning courses (Beck and Ferdig 2008). It is less clear if these gains can be realized with higher-order learning objectives, such as those associated with technical laboratory experiences. The vast majority of research on the effectiveness of e-learning shows that e-learning results in meaningful learning at least equivalent to the traditional classroom setting (Rivers and Vockell 1987; Hood and others 2002; Culbertson and Smith 2003; Johnson and others 2004; Koretsky and others 2008), especially when used in a supplementary role (Rivers and Vockell 1987; Kozma 1991; Huang 2003). However, there is some debate that revolves around the effectiveness of e-learning as compared to traditional laboratory experiences. Opponents of e-learning believe that technical courses require face-to-face interaction to fully achieve the course objectives (Salter 2003; Koretsky and others 2008) and the effec48 Journal of Food Science Education • Vol. 13, 2014
tiveness of e-learning is a function of the content and context of how it is designed to be used (Rivers and Vockell 1987; Steinberg 2000; Lee and others 2006). As the debates continue, however, the technology continues to advance so that the interaction between instructors and students becomes more and more realistic and the use of the technology becomes more seamless and less distracting. Although most traditional forms of e-learning have been textbased, using only simple graphics or pre-recorded videos, recent technological advances now provide students with experiences that are more rich, interactive, and enjoyable (game-based). Emerging technologies are moving beyond traditional blogs, chat rooms, podcasts, and streaming video, and are making use of virtual environments and social networking sites. In particular, virtual social environments and 3D simulations provide opportunities for Internet-delivered and game-based technical learning experiences. Educators and learners alike are beginning to utilize these tools to gather and diffuse technical information, socialize, collaborate, and create (de Freitas and Yapp 2005; West-Burnham 2005; Conole and others 2000). Developing an e-learning environment to deliver a scientific laboratory-based course needs to be a multidisciplinary endeavor. Experts with the science knowledge need additional expertise in pedagogy, psychology, software engineering, and computer programming to take full advantage of the areas of instructional design, graphic design, game design, and multimedia development. Through synergism of talent, ideas, and skill sets, a more complete and successful product, with improved potential to meet the identified learning objectives, can be created. As experts from a variety of disciplines increasingly collaborate on providing new kinds of educational experiences, the concept of an online laboratory experience that delivers learning outcomes that are equal to a face-to-face laboratory experiences is possible.
Types of E-Learning Platforms: Simulations and Games E-learning platforms vary widely in both form and function and it is important to understand the differences between these platforms. For example, although simulations and digital educational games share many of the same game theory components, they also have distinctly different attributes. Simulations are considered to be experiences that are based on reality, but transformed into simplified or accelerated processes so that the student can learn in an individually paced environment with risk-free exploration, experimentation, and observation (Crawford 1984; Saunders 1987). For example, virtual food engineering experiments, what-if analysis, and inquiry-based learning modules are available on the Explore Food Engineering Web site (http://www.rpaulsingh.com/). This Web site provides students with opportunities to experiment and learn complex concepts with real-life scenarios in real-time, without time constraints or fear of negative feedback (Singh and Circelli 2005). In an attempt to balance education and enjoyment, digital educational games provide both a real-world educational component and an engaging game experience (Frasca 2003; Juul 2005). Virtual educational games provide settings that require player collaboration or competition, with specific rules and consequences for actions, while aiming to meet defined learning objectives (Reeves and Read 2009, Deterding and others 2011). For example, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) were part of a joint effort to develop the collaborative and engaging 3D video game, Immune Attack (http://immuneattack.org/) (Kelly and others 2007). Available on-line through ift.org
Review of online learning technology . . . Through interactive visuals and animations, abstract immunology concepts become more concrete as students advance through the levels of game play. For the purposes of this review, the terms game and e-learning platform may be used interchangeably.
Learning Theories Technical learning can be optimized when theoretical principles of learning and instruction are incorporated into the learning platform design. Theories of learning are based on scientific principles and are an attempt to explain how learning occurs, what factors influence learning, the role of memory in learning, how transfer of knowledge occurs, and what types of learning and teaching best fit with that theory (Mergel 1998). Learning theories also guide instructional design. The goal of instructional design can be to engage appropriate cognitive processes in the learner, during learning events. The use of appropriate learning theories and instructional design are vital to the success of the educational platform. The fundamental process of learning is considered to be the same in both online and traditional educational settings (Bates 2004) and traditional learning theories have been used to develop curriculum in both instances. However, e-learning designs that rely heavily on external motivation or rote memorization, such as is reflective of behaviorist learning theory (Skinner 1974; Watson 1913), often fail to fully motivate and engage the learner because deeper cognitive involvement is not recognized and implemented into the design. E-learning platforms that incorporate appropriate learning theories into their design can effectively offer authentic learning environments (Quellmalz and others 2012). In order to more accurately reflect the use of virtual e-learning platforms in educational settings, a study of more applied learning theories is suggested. Experiential learning theory is one example of a more applied learning theory.
Experiential learning theory Transferring and translating theoretical information learned in a classroom setting to a real-life setting can be difficult if the abstract concepts are poorly understood (Colwell and others 2002). However, concrete experiences (for example, laboratory experiments) have the potential to improve student learning and effectiveness (Barros and others 2008), by transforming abstract concepts into tangible actions. Concrete experiences engage the learner and optimize learning by producing feelings that lead to self-observation and better understanding of the abstract concept. By more deeply understanding their environment, learners can meaningfully organize new information. New information that has been logically organized can lead to hypotheses testing, which brings the learner back to a concrete experience. Experiential learning theory attempts to explain how perception, cognitive processes, environment, and individual feelings are transformed into knowledge, through stages of direct, concrete experiences, reflective observations, abstract conceptualizations, planning, and active experimentations or testing within context (Kolb and others 2001). A learner can begin at any stage, but then must cycle through the subsequent stages. In contrast to behaviorist learning theory which is instructor centered (Skinner 1974; Watson 1913), and where instruction relies on passive learning and cognitive management of information is hypothesized to be extraneous to the learning process, experiential learning theory borrows more heavily from student centered learning theories like the cognitive (Ausubel 1960, 1963, 1968) and constructivist (Duffy and Jonassen 1992; Doolittle and Camp 1999) learning theories. Available on-line through ift.org
Experiential learning theory is able to bridge the gap between abstract theory and concrete experiences by emphasizing experience as a precursor to knowledge (Dewey 1938; Rogers 1969; Kolb and Fry 1975; Joplin 1981; Kolb 1984). Like cognitive learning theory, experiential learning theory focuses on mental processes that integrate new information with previous knowledge, skills, and experience (Ertmer and Newby 1993; Driscoll 2005). And, like constructivism, experiential learning theory encourages active discovery by the learner, where the instructor encourages the student to find his or her own understanding of a concept or problem and the student learns at their own pace by a hands-on and collaborative approach. Two types of pedagogic approaches that utilize principles of experiential learning theory are problem-based and project-based learning. Problem-based learning (PBL) encourages students, either individually or in groups, to develop and work to meet their own learning objectives, while solving a specific, real-world problem (Hmelo-Silver 2004; Maxwell and others 2005; Kimmons and others 2011). For example, Food Science instructors have incorporated PBL exercises into their course formats (Duffrin 2003; Liceaga and others 2011). One modified PBL exercise presented in a Food Science Dairy Products course involved a milk quality case study. Prior to beginning the problem-based exercise, students had been through the lecture and lab components of the course and were able to use their background knowledge as one key in solving the problem. However, students still had to discover a need for acquiring additional information and how and where to find that information. Having teaching assistants acting as learning facilitators, students were provided with weekly statements of disclosure and guiding questions. In addition, students were required to send frequent letters of inquiry to the Plant Manager (the course instructor), seeking clarification of facts. A quality assurance manager from a local dairy processing facility met with the class to answer questions. Finally, students were required to write a “Consultant’s Report” on the identified problem and recommended solutions. Using a PBL framework has the potential to increase student learning and leadership skills (Maxwell and others 2005; Baker and others 2007) and develop students’ problem solving skills to a much greater degree, as compared to students taught solely through a lecture-based approach (Barrows and Tamblyn 1980; Woods and others 1997). Project-based learning involves teacher-led guidance of students through a cooperative design process (Houghton Mifflin 1998) that addresses a specific, real-world problem to be solved, a plan to solve the problem, testing of the solution, and communication of the problem solving process (Wurdinger and others 2007). In the professional world, problem-solving, working as a productive team member and the ability to budget time and other resources are required skills that can determine success (Prazak 1998) and project-based learning is designed to foster these important skills (Hargreaves 1997; Furger 2003). In addition, research has shown that students given a project often exceed expectations (Curtis 2002). For example, an Introduction to Foods course was designed to incorporate a competitive and project-based learning component (Willard and Duffrin 2003). The students were tasked with developing a balanced meal that required collaborative team planning and organization, including goal development and a research agenda (Chard 2001). However, in order to elicit consistent motivation and engagement from the students, an element of inter-team competition was included and the project was referred to as “Battle of the Food Scientists.” Within project parameters and without direction on how to do the project, students were Vol. 13, 2014 • Journal of Food Science Education 49
Review of online learning technology . . . actively participant in hypothetical examples. In the Rheological Properties of Foods virtual experiment, students observe the rheological properties of a vanilla pudding sample, by adjusting the sample temperature. By manipulating a desired experimental outcome, students are able to use the examples as interactive learning tools. In contrast to reading a text-based example, this interactive Cognitive load theory In order for new information to be permanently stored in long- format has the potential to provide students with a more in-depth term memory, information needs to first be properly processed processing and understanding of abstract concepts. Germane load and encoded in short-term (working) memory (Cooper 1998). is a key in transforming the learner from a novice to an expert. Providing an appropriate amount of information that supports the construction of knowledge in short- and long-term memory is Learner motivation: Zone of proximal development (ZPD) important to effective learning (Sweller 2003). This is because and flow Understanding the learner in relation to the game tasks and memory resources are limited and vary by the individual (Miller tools can provide insight into how to incorporate appropriate 1956). Cognitive load theory addresses the limitations of informa- and continual instructor guidance in a team-based, collaborative, tion processing and the storage capacity of short-term working and problem-solving e-learning environment. For example, unmemory (Sweller 1988, 1994; Tindall-Ford and others 1997; derstanding the basic knowledge and skill level of the learner can Kirschner 2002). Three main sources of cognitive load are: (a) ensure that required tasks and proposed tools are uncomplicated intrinsic (Sweller 1993; Clark and others 2006), (b) extraneous and appropriately designed to empower the learner to find their (Chandler and Sweller 1991, 1992), and (c) germane (Sweller and own solutions. Keeping learners’ abilities in mind from the earliest others 1998). These 3 subcategories of cognitive load compete design stages will promote motivation to continue engagement for mental resources and must be properly balanced for optimal and will minimize unwarranted distraction (Pearce and Howard learning to occur. The goal is to manage intrinsic load, minimize 2004). Well-constructed e-learning experiences can maintain stuextraneous load, and maximize germane load. Intrinsic load can be defined as the “mental work imposed dents’ interest and enhance the learning of technical topics. Foby the complexity of the content” that is presented (Clark and cus and learning can be enhanced by the creation of a wellothers 2006). Although intrinsic load cannot be manipulated by designed e-learning game design that balances the element of instructional design, it can be reduced by applying simple con- play with the education component and includes, but is not tent. For example, a complex lesson can be divided into smaller limited to, support of critical thinking of the learner, the use learning modules, thus reducing the intrinsic load of each module, of multiple senses, collaboration, assessment, and problem solvallowing for better retention. In addition, presenting background ing tasks (Garrison and others 2001; MacDonald and othcontent separate from procedural steps can also reduce the intrinsic ers 2001; Costkyan 2002; Rollings and Adams 2003; Triacca load of each module (Pollock and others 2002). For example, vir- and others 2004). The FAS created the Science Game Centual experiments on Food Engineering processes, including Food ter Web site (http://www.sciencegamecenter.org/) to host inProperties, Heat Transfer, and Food Storage, are available on the novative and educational video game technology that is geared Explore Food Engineering Web site (rpaulsingh.com). These ex- to science and math-based learning. Many games on this Web periments provide students with complex content that is divided site epitomize successful and well-constructed video game deinto brief learning and assessment segments. The segments are sign. For example, the 3D action-adventure game, Meta!Blast designed so that the experimental Procedures, Theory, and Vir- (http://metnet-mbl.gdcb.iastate.edu/), allows players to learn celtual Experiment are presented on separate tabs. By managing the lular and molecular biology in the context of a fun and engaging intrinsic load imposed by the complex content presented, this game. This game is one of many on this site that demonstrates format has the potential to increase information retention. Extra- the use of video game technology to merge play and learning in a neous load occurs as a function of information presentation and is meaningful way that promotes motivation and focused attention. due to irrelevant factors that do not contribute to learning. Good Maintaining learner motivation and focused attention throughinstructional design can minimize the level of extraneous load. out the learning game is vital to learner success in e-learning For example, unorganized content, missing information, and the (Cordova and Lepper 1996; Costkyan 2002). Motivation and focus misuse of tools, such as redundant multimedia (Mayer and others can be accomplished through the instructor consciously designing 2001; Moreno and Mayer 2002), can divert attention from active a game that includes an optimized ZPD (Vygotsky 1962). ZPD learning and lead to excessive extraneous load. By limiting ex- addresses the area of knowledge and skill that exists between what traneous load, the learners’ cognitive resources can be utilized by the learners can and cannot do without assistance. If the game higher order tasks. challenges parallel the player’s knowledge and skill level, flow can Like extraneous load, germane load can be manipulated by be maintained. the instructor, but, unlike extraneous load, germane load should Flow describes a state of complete focus and immersion in an be optimized. Germane load is the work required to complete activity that produces an enjoyable experience (Csikszentmihalyi instruction-driven activities. Germane cognitive load is benefi- 1975; Chen and others 1999; Finneran and Zhang 2003). Flow cial because it includes the processing, construction, and cognitive develops through a structured sequence of subsequent stages (Weborganization of information that is necessary for the learners’ re- ster and others 1993; Hoffman and Novak 1996; Chen and others tention and understanding. For example, in-depth processing of 1999; Finneran and Zhang 2003; Skadberg and Kimmel 2004) and examples given within a learning module can increase learning includes precursors, experiences (Chen and others 1999; Finneran more than a precursory study of the same examples (Chi and oth- and Zhang 2003), and consequences (Webster and others 1993; ers 2000). For example, the virtual experiments on the Explore Skadberg and Kimmel 2004). Precursors to flow include focus, Food Engineering Web site (rpaulsingh.com) require students to clear goals and objectives, timely feedback, perceived control, engaged, self-motivated, and showed an interest in lecture material that they could translate to their project. Project-based learning motivates students to learn (Blumenfeld and others 1991) and improves student learning (Barak and Dori 2005).
50 Journal of Food Science Education • Vol. 13, 2014
Available on-line through ift.org
Review of online learning technology . . . playfulness, usability (speed and ease of use), and challenges appropriate to skill level. Experiences within the flow state include distortion of time, loss of self-awareness, merging of action and awareness, concentration, immersion, and a sense of control over the tasks. Consequences of flow include increased learning, attitude shift, exploration, and perceived behavioral control. Hence, motivation, attention, and prolonged game play can occur when there is an optimal ZPD and flow. In contrast, if the assigned problems or tasks are beyond what the learner can readily accomplish alone, the learner may become anxious or apprehensive about completing the exercise and their learning suffers. On the other hand, if the problems or tasks are too easy for the learner, then distraction and boredom may develop and suboptimal learning will take place.
Principles of Educational Game Design Learning outcomes can be improved when learning is engaging and fun (Cordova and Lepper 1996). With the incorporation of appropriate learning theories, successful game-based e-learning design engages learners and allows them to explore, reflect, test hypotheses, and create products (Field 2007). The integration of appropriate learning theories into e-learning design also provides a guide that motivates the learner to meet the learning objectives. Game-based learning utilizes a variety of applicable learning theories, based on the defined learning objectives. For example, experiential learning theory approaches in the game design may include learning goals that aim to embed learning into realistic and social situations, encourage the learner to take ownership of the experience, and provide experiences that reflect multiple viewpoints (Robinson 1998). The integration of online education, adaptation, and assessment also contribute to a successful game-based learning experience (Ju and Wagner 1997; Moreno-Ger and others 2005; de Freitas and Oliver 2006). First, the game design should take into account current and emerging standards and platforms of e-learning. For example, Polsani (2003) advocated for creating learning objects, such as smaller and more focused games, that would limit the cognitive load of the learner at one particular time. In addition, cultural differences of the target audience should be identified early in the design process, in order to reduce learner distraction. Second, adaptability can be designed into the simulation to utilize the users’ individual learning preferences, knowledge, and skill sets. For example, integrated tracking can adapt knowledge and skill level tasks that are appropriate for individual learning levels and abilities. Third, assessment evaluates the quality of the learning experience. Through the interactive nature of the game environment, assessments can be conducted by the game system design or separately, by the instructor. For example, a game system can keep track of users’ movement throughout the system and time spent on specific tasks. The system can also gather information on the specific actions taken, words written, and answers given to any problem/situation encountered in the game. Often, this is more insightful than the traditional pre- and posttest or interview. Game elements, such as the user interface, genre, storyline and text, rules, maps, and items can be authored to make the learning experience engaging and fun. In addition, these game elements can be used to facilitate the integration of learning objectives and promote adaptation and assessment. A brief description of each of these elements is outlined below.
in such a way that the interface does not distract the user from the course objectives, or add to the extraneous load. Usability testing (Dumas and Redish 1993) can be applied to assess how well the user receives information and the extent to which goals can be met through the use of the interface. Game genre (McCann 2009a) – Game genre reflects how the game is structured and can include traditional and more novel categories. For example, traditional game genres may include action, strategy, and role-playing. More recently created game genres include simulation, MMORPG (Massively Multiple Online Role-Playing Games), and augmented reality simulations (Squire 2007). In addition, genre combinations are also a possibility. For example, combining action and adventure or simulation and architecture genres may be used to enhance and add interest to game play. Narrative – The development of the background story is central to successful game design and describes the setting and theme of the game. The story and dialogue describes to the user what the game is about and the surrounding circumstances of experiences within the game (Juul 2001). Just like an engaging movie or television show, an engaging and believable game-based story and dialogue can motivate a user to continue game play and develop an emotional attachment to the game characters (Pearce 2003). Mechanics – Mechanics are actions that can be taken by objects within the game or by the users themselves. Mechanics are created to bring enjoyment and interest to the game environment. Points, game levels, challenges with rewards, and game rules are examples of mechanics. Items – Game items can be characters, currency, objects, and tasks that are embedded throughout the game. Items can have educational or social value and can be saved for later use or traded for other items. Game mapping (environment design) – Game mapping involves the design of multiple levels or missions, a detailed layout of the game environment, and placement of objects and challenges within the game environment. For example, mapping could include the placement of buildings and pastoral elements within the different game levels, as well as covertly placed clues and artifacts. In addition, learning activities and concepts can be mapped to interface with actions and objects. The integration of theories of learning into the game design will strengthen the interception, proper interpretation, and storage of the educational message that is being presented within the game.
Project Management Tools for Educational Game Design Engineering design process. In order to develop a clear, organized, and focused game design, a well-defined plan to guide the process needs to be developed. Borrowing from popular project design models, the educational game design team can methodically identify a problem and work through to the evaluated solution. The engineering design process and the ADDIE model are 2 common project design models. Just as the scientific method guides the scientist through the necessary steps from observation, stating then testing a hypothesis, the engineering design process can guide a teams’ designers and engineers in the creation and implementation process of a learning product that can be tested to measure how well a student was User interface – The user interface determines how the user able to meet the objectives (http://curriculum.vexrobotics.com/, experiences and interacts with the game and should be designed www.sciencebuddies.org). The engineering design process is a Available on-line through ift.org
Vol. 13, 2014 • Journal of Food Science Education 51
Review of online learning technology . . . formal and systematic process that outlines a project from the earliest idea stages to product development. Following this process should help the design team understand what the game is about, how the game is played, how winning is accomplished, and early attention as to why someone would want to engage in the game. In addition, the design process should enable the design team to create project documentation that includes learning goals and objectives of the game, an outline of content to meet the objectives, a paragraph that describes the theme and core dynamic (main point) of the game, and a brief description of demographics, such as the intended target user, genre, and platform of choice. The process requires the expert design team to ask themselves what the problem is that they are attempting to solve, imagine possible solutions to the problem, plan and diagram their design, create the design based on their plan, and revise the design based on assessment results and learner feedback. It also involves the use of rapid prototyping, a process of involving the end user in multiple testing and revision cycles (Oliverio and Beck 2009). Steps in the design process include: 1. Define and understand the true problem. This step requires the design team to ask “[Who] need(s) [what] because [why].” After a clear definition of the specific problem has been agreed upon, beginning a blog and project notebook will become essential for the duration of the project. Maintaining a blog and meticulous project notebook will organize ideas, research, drawings, questions, comments, data, and observations. The notebook should be maintained in such a way that all team members, or an observer unfamiliar with the design, could replicate the work and have an understanding of the guiding principles behind that work. 2. Do background research. At this stage, the design team analyzes literature that discusses previous models and designs that have been used to solve a similar problem. Thinking about design parameters, such as environment, context, and use, the designer will better be able to more precisely customize the design. 3. Determine design specifications. Design constraints and functional requirements explain what the solution will do and how well it will do it. For example, time limitations and user ability are limiting factors that will restrict game design. How the solution will be implemented will be addressed later. Further, ranking specifications based on importance (demand, preferred, wish) can assist in development and goal-setting. 4. Brainstorm solutions. This is the step that describes how the solution will be designed. Although imagination and thinking are required at each step of the overall design process, this is the time where they are highly emphasized. Every idea that comes to mind, either individually or in a group setting, should be recorded in the project notebook. 5. Build/test prototype. This is the step where the design team will learn if the concept and solution will function and interact appropriately within the proposed environment and context. Data collection at this stage should be meticulous. Analysis of successes and failures of the design and related interactions should be balanced with generation of innovative ideas to overcome observed limitations and build on positive outcomes. 6. Test and redesign. At this step, the design team will recruit 3–5 beta testers from the target audience to evaluate the usability of the game design (Nielsen 2000; Turner and others 52 Journal of Food Science Education • Vol. 13, 2014
2006). Usability testing aims to evaluate the user friendliness of the product, the degree to which defined learning objectives were met, and how satisfied the tester was with the product (Dumas and Redish 1993). Using 5 beta testers per testing session should uncover approximately 85% of interface flaws in a setting that aims to compare similar interface use between similar tester demographics. Through a talk out loud approach, the design team will record what the testers say, do, and how they interact with the program and peripheral hardware of the game. The designer will also make notes of key areas of confusion or questions that were asked by the testers (Ericsson and Simon 1987; Vredenburg and others 2002; Travis 2003; FrØkjaer and Hornbaek 2005). Video or audio recording or writing down comments during the test session allows the design team to have a consultable reference. All verbal and observational feedback should be recorded in the project notebook. After conducting the beta test, redesign of the program, based on observations and feedback, should commence. Redesign should include fixing of problems and refining successes. 7. Communicate design. Writing of the project report should occur throughout the design process. Sections of the report should include a problem statement, background research, materials list, procedures used, data analysis and discussion (data table and graph), conclusions, and future research. The report should address how the design (solution) meets the need (problem) and impacts and tradeoffs of the solution. ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) instructional design model. Like the engineering de-
sign process, the ADDIE model is a structured guide for project development (Wang and Hsu 2009). However, where the engineering design process focuses on an end product, the ADDIE model focuses on the instructional design of the system. Following the ADDIE model should help the design team create learning opportunities that are reflective of the identified learning objective and to effectively evaluate learning outcomes. Steps in the instructional design process include: 1. Analysis. Before beginning a game design, the design team needs to determine if there is a gap in learning and the most effective way to bridge that gap. For example, poor performance in a research laboratory may not be attributable to a lack of training, but a lack of functional tools to carry out a new protocol. Therefore, creating an e-learning module about the new protocol for the laboratory workers would be unnecessary. Once a problem has been identified, learning styles, motivation levels, technological aptitude, and learning goals can be determined. Design limitations and timelines are also created. 2. Design. Once the required content of the learning module is determined, the designer can create a set of sequential learning objectives. At this stage in the process, the designer will determine appropriate methods of content delivery and assessment strategies to be used in the game design. Based on earlier user analysis data, the design may need to incorporate instructional modules, in order to familiarize the learner with the platform structure. 3. Development. All module content is developed, including multimedia files, tasks, and assessments. Multimedia content can be developed by collecting all required and relevant information and creating an integrated storyboard that Available on-line through ift.org
Review of online learning technology . . . includes all images, videos, text, and assessments. Additional content and interactive attributes can be created before integrating the content into a learning platform. 4. Implementation. The learning module is made available to the learners, on the designated game platform. The instructor can monitor and evaluate the learners’ progress. 5. Evaluation. Assessment at all stages of the design process can encourage appropriate revision and redesign by the design team. In addition, the ability of the learner to meet the outlined learning objectives or the usability of the game design and interface can be assessed throughout game play. Data collection at the assessment points is important for improvement of design and learning outcomes. 3D, Immersive Platforms: Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVE) and Augmented Reality (AR). Many online, 3D platforms
that can accommodate educational components have been created. MUVE and AR are types of online, 3D platformsthat are appealing to educators (Dickey 2005; Peterson 2006) because of the high level of participant engagement that is required. In addition to the social aspect of these immersive environments, educational learning can often occur in didactic or game-based formats within these worlds. In MUVE, avatars are frequently used to engage in real-world experiences. For example, avatars in Second Life (secondlife.com) can engage in settings that encourage social learning (Strickland and Roos 2013), as well as participate in goal-oriented tasks and actively learn through exploration and discovery. Learning environments in Second Life can be designed that permit the learner to solve problems and construct meaning from their experiences. An additional example of a MUVE is River City (http:// muve.gse.harvard.edu/muvees2003/index.html). With funding from the NSF, River City was created through a multidiscipline collaborative effort. In this platform, students are required to use experimental design and formulate hypotheses in order to address biological and epidemiological problems found in the native residents (Dede 2009). The use of AR, the superimposing of technology into realworld experiences, and place-based learning are the backbone of the ARIS (Arisgames.org) platform (Li 2010; Krosinsky 2011). ARIS is experienced with the use of iPhones, iPads, and iPod Touches, through interactive characters, items, and media that is linked to a physical location. A wireless connection is essential for the use of this platform. Interaction is created via mobile games, tours, and interactive stories that utilize the Global Positioning System (GPS) and Quick Response Codes (QR) For example, an ARIS lesson on enzyme kinetics may have the user physically go to a designated location. While in that location, the user would then be instructed to interact with virtual characters as well as locate and scan physical items that would lead to information gathering and the creation of a “product.”
Conclusion Due to the abstract nature of the subject content, complex scientific and technical information can be difficult to communicate. One way to overcome this difficulty is to incorporate learning modules into an e-learning design. For example, by embedding real world scientific principles and processes into a virtual laboratory simulation or game, learning objectives can be met through engaging and fun platform design. Understanding cognitive processing limitations, elements of learner motivation, and educational game design principles is benAvailable on-line through ift.org
eficial in the development of e-learning platforms that are engaging and fun. In addition, the use of experiential learning theory in the e-learning design promotes the development of problem solving skills and leadership skills. By incorporating the ADDIE model of instructional design into a detailed design process, such as the engineering design process, clear learning goals and objectives for the e-learning modules can be created and evaluated.
References Aris. Available from: http://arisgames.org/. Accessed July 13, 2013. Ausubel DP. 1960. The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal materials. J Educ Psychol 51(5):267–72. Ausubel DP. 1963. Cognitive structure and the facilitation of meaningful verbal learning. J Teach Educ 14:217–22. Ausubel DP. 1968. Educational psychology: a cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Baker CM, McDaniel AM, Pesut DJ, Fisher ML. 2007. Learning skills profiles of master’s students in nursing administration: assessing the impact of problem-based learning. Nurs Educ Perspect 28(4):190–5. Baltra A. 1990. Language learning through computer adventure games. Simul Gaming 21(4):445–52. Barak M, Dori YJ. 2005. Enhancing undergraduate students’ chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an IT environment. Sci Educ 89(1):117–39. Barros JAO, Dalfr´e GM, Dias JP. 2008. Numerical simulation of continuous RC slabs strengthened using NSM Technique. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Concrete Repair, Rehabilitation and Retrofitting, November, Cape Town, South Africa. Barrows HS, Tamblyn RH. 1980. Problem-based learning: an approach to medical education. New York: Springer Bates T. 2004. The promise and myths of e-learning in post-secondary education. In: Castells M, editor, The Network Society: A Cross-cultural Perspective. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. p 271–92. Baxter G. 1995. Using computer simulations to assess hands-on science learning. J Sci Educ Technol 4(1):21–7. Beck D, Ferdig RE. 2008. Evolving roles of online and face-to-face instructors in a lecture/lab hybrid course. Turkish Online J Educ Technol 7(1):5–17. Benson L, Elliott D, Grant M, Holschuh D, Kim B, Kim H, Lauber E, Loh S, Reeves TC. 2002. Usability and instructional design heuristics for e-learning evaluation. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2002:1615–21. Blumenfeld P, Soloway E, Marx R, Krajcik J, Guzdial M, Palincsar A. 1991. Motivating project based learning: sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educ Psychol 26:369–98. Boase J, Horrigan JB, Wellman B, Raine L. 2006. Strength of internet ties. Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/˜/media//Files/Reports/ 2006/PIP_Internet_ties.pdf.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2013. Borowski EY, Henry D, Larsen LL, Matelik D. 1997. Supporting teaching and learning via web: transforming hard-copy linear mind sets into web flexible creative thinking. J Netw Comput Appl 20:253–65. Chandler P, Sweller J. 1991. Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cogn Instr 8(4):293–332. Chandler P, Sweller J. 1992. The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. Br J Educ Psychol 62(2):233–46. Chard S. 2001. Project development structure. The project approach. Available from: http://www.project-approach.com. Accessed January 26, 2014. Chen H, Wigand R, Nilan MS. 1999. Optimal experience of web activities. Comput Hum Behav 15:585–608. Chi MTH, Bassock M, Lewis MW, Reimann P, Glaser R. 2000. Self-explanations: how students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Sci 13:145–82. Clark R. 2002. Six principles of effective e-learning: what works and why. The e-Learning Developer’s J Sept 1–10. Clark RC, Nguyen F, Sweller J. 2006. Efficiency in learning: evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco, Calif.: Pfeiffer. Colwell C, Scanlon E, Cooper M. 2002. Using remote laboratories to extend access to science and engineering. Comput Educ 38(1):65–76.
Vol. 13, 2014 • Journal of Food Science Education 53
Review of online learning technology . . . Conole G, de Laat M, Dillon T, Darby J. 2008. Disruptive technologies’, ‘pedagogical innovation’: What’s new? Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception of technology. Comput Educ 50:511–24. Cooper G. 1998. Research into cognitive load theory and instructional design at UNSW. Available from: http://paedpsych.jk.uni-linz.ac.at: 4711/LEHRTEXTE/Cooper98.html. Accessed Sept 15, 2013. Cordova DI, Lepper MR. 1996. Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. J Educ Psychol 88:715. Costkyan G. 2002. I have no words & I must design: toward a critical vocabulary for games. Proceedings of the Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference, Finland. Crawford C. 1984. The art of computer game design. Berkeley, Calif.: Osborne/McGraw-Hill. p 8. Csikszentmihalyi M. 1975. Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass. Culbertson JD, Smith DM. 2003. On-line compared with face-to-face introductory food science courses: an assessment. J Food Sci Edu 2:13–6. Curtis D. 2002. The power of projects. Educ Leadership 60(1):50–3. Dede C. 2009. Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science 323:66–8. Deterding S, Sicart M, Nacke L, OʼHara K, Dixon D. 2011. Gamification: using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. Proc. CHI EA: ‘11, ACM Press. p 2425–8. Dewey J. 1938. Experience and education. New York: Simon and Schuster. de Freitas S, Oliver M. 2006. How can exploratory learning with games and simulations within the curriculum be most effectively evaluated? Comput Educ 46:249–264. de Freitas S, Yapp C, editors. 2005. Personalizing learning in the 21st century. Stafford: Network Educational Press. Dickey MD. 2005. Three-dimensional virtual worlds and distance learning: two case studies of Active Worlds as a medium for distance education. Br J Educ Technol 36(3):439–51. Doolittle PE, Camp WG. 1999. Constructivism: the career and technical education perspective. J Vocat Tech Educ 16(1):23–46. Driscoll MP. 2005. Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, Mass.: Pearson Education, Inc. Duffrin MW. 2003. Integrating problem-based learning in an introductory college food science course. J Food Sci Ed 2:2–6. Duffy TM, Jonassen DH, editors. 1992. Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation. Oxford, UK: Psychology Press. Dumas JS, Redish JC. 1993. A practical guide to usability testing. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corp. p 405. Dutton WH, Helsper E. 2007. The internet in Britain. Available from: http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/oxis/OxIS2007_report.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2013. Ericsson K, Simon H. 1987. Verbal reports on thinking. In: Faerch C, Kasper G, editors. Introspection in second language research. Bristol, U.K.: Multilingual Matters. p 24–54. Ertmer PA, Newby TJ. 1993. Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Perform Improv Q 6(4):50–72. Explore Food Engineering. Available from: http://www.rpaulsingh.com/ Accessed January 26, 2014. Field J. 2007. Looking outwards, not inwards. ELT J 61(1):30–8. Finneran CM, Zhang P. 2003. A person–artefact–task (PAT) model of flow antecedents in computer-mediated environments. Int J Hum-Comput St 59:475–96. Frasca G. 2003. Simulation versus narrative. In Video game theory. Oxford, UK: Routledge. Frøkjaer E, Hornbaek K. 2005. Cooperative usability testing: complementing usability tests with user-supported interprestation sessions. Extended abstracts of ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, April 2–7, 2005, Portland: Oreg. Furger R. 2003. Urban academy: where testing is anything but standard. Edutopia. Available from: http://glef.org. Accessed January 29, 2014. Gardner H. 1993. Multiple intelligences. New York: BasicBooks, Inc. Garrison DR, Anderson T, Archer W. 2001. Critical thinking and computer conferencing: a model and tool to assess cognitive presence. Am J Distance Educ 15:7–23.
54 Journal of Food Science Education • Vol. 13, 2014
¨ Askar P, Ozkan ¨ ¨ı. 1992. Effects of computer simulations and Geban O, problem-solving approaches on high school students. J Educ Res 86:5–19. Grasha AF, Yangarber HN. 2000. Integrating teaching styles and learning styles with instructional technology. Coll Teach 48:2–9. Harasim L. 2000. Shift happens: online education as a new paradigm in learning. Internet High Educ 3(1–2):41–61. Hargreaves DJ. 1997. Students learning and assessment are inextricably linked. Eur J Eng Educ 2294:401–9. Herriot AM, Bishop JA, Kelly M, Murphy M, Truby H. 2003. Evaluation of a computer assisted instruction resource in nursing education. Nurs Educ Today 23:537–45. Hmelo-Silver CE. 2004. Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educ Psychol Rev 16:235–66. Hoffman DL, Novak TP. 1996. Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: conceptual foundations. J Marketing 60: 50–68. Hood LF, Stefanou SE, Lord JB, Zoumas BL, Hernandez-Serrano J. 2002. A multi-institutional web-based undergraduate food product innovation and marketing course. J Food Sci Edu 1:10–7. Houghton Mifflin H. 1998. Project-Based Learning Space. Background knowledge & theory. Available from: http://college.cengage.com/ education/pbl/background.html. Accessed January 26, 2014. Huang C. 2003. Changing learning with new interactive and media-rich instruction environments: Virtual labs case study report. Comput Med Imaging Graph 27:157. Huckstadt A, Hayes K. 2005. Evaluation of interactive online courses for advanced practice nurses. J Am Acad Nurse Prac 17(3):85–9. Immune Attack. Available from: http://immuneattack.org/. Accessed July 26, 2014. Johnson HL, Trout BL, Brekke CJ, Luedecke LO. 2004. Hands-on, demonstration, and videotape laboratories for non-science majors in a food science course: achievement, attitude, and efficiency. J Food Sci Edu 3:2–7. Joplin L. 1981. On defining experiential education. J Exp Educ 4:17–20. Ju E, Wagner C. 1997. Personal computer adventure games: their structure, principles, and applicability for training. ACM SIGMIS Database 28(2):78–92. Juul J. 2001. Games telling stories? A brief note on games and narratives. Game Studies 1(1):40–62. Juul J. 2005. Half-real: video games between real rules and fictional worlds. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kelly H, Howell K, Glinert E, Holding L, Swain C, Burrowbridge A, Roper M. 2007. How to build serious games. Commun ACM 50(7):44–9. Kimmons R, Liu M, Kang J, Santana L. 2011. Attitude, achievement, and gender in a middle school science-based ludic simulation for Learning. J Educ Technol Syst 40(4):341–70. Kirschner PA. 2002. Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learn Instr 12(1):1–10. Kolb D. 1984. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Vol. 1. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Kolb DA, Fry R. 1975. Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In: Cooper C, editor. Theories of group process. London: John Wiley. Kolb DA, Boyatzis RE, Mainemelis C. 2001. Experiential learning theory: previous research and new directions. In: Sternberg J, Zhang LF, editors.Perspectives in thinking, learning, and cognitive styles. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. p 227. Koretsky M, Amatore D, Barnes C, Kimura A. 2008. Enhancement of student learning in experimental design using a virtual laboratory. IEEE Trans Ed 5191:76–85. Kozma RB. 1991. Learning with media. Rev Educ Res 61:179–211. Krosinsky S. 2011. Augmented reality enhances learning. Available from: http://news.unm.edu/2011/04/augmented-reality-enhances-learning/ Accessed July 13, 2013. Lee H, Plass J, Homer B. 2006. Optimizing cognitive load for learning from computer-based science simulations. J Educ Psychol 98:902–13. Lewis MJ, Davies R, Jenkins D, Tait MI. 2005. A review of evaluative studies of computer-based learning in nursing education. Nurs Educ Today 25:586–97. Li S. Augmented reality on smartphones brings teaching down to earth. 2010. Available from: http://chronicle.com/article/Augmented-Realityon/65991/. Accessed July 13, 2013.
Available on-line through ift.org
Review of online learning technology . . . Liceaga AM, Ballard TS, Skura BJ. 2011. Incorporating a modified problem-based learning exercise in a traditional lecture and lab-based dairy products course. J Food Sci Ed 10(2):19–22. MacDonald CJ, Stodel EJ, Farres LG, Breithaupt K, Gabriel MA. 2001. The demand-driven learning model: a framework for web-based learning. Internet Higher Educ 4:9–30. Maxwell NL, Mergendoller JR, Bellisimo Y. 2005. Problem-based learning and high school economics: a comparative study of instructional methods. J Econ Educ 36(4):315–31. Mayer RE, Heiser J, Lonn S. 2001. Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: when presenting more material results in less understanding. J Educ Psychol 93:187–98. McCann S. 2009a. Game genres demystified. Library J. 134(1):56. McKinney W. 1997. The educational use of computer based science simulations: some lessons from the philosophy of science. Sci Educ 6:591–603. Mergel B. 1998. Instructional design and learning theory. Available from: http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda. html. Accessed Sept 15, 2013. Meta!Blast. Available from: http://metnet-mbl.gdcb.iastate.edu/ Accessed January 26, 2014. Miller G. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 63:81–97. Mills JE, Treagust DF. 2003. Using projects to teach structural engineering. Aust J Struct Eng 4:211–20. Moreno R, Mayer RE. 2002. Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: when reading helps listening. J Educ Psychol 94:156–63. Moreno-Ger P, Martinez-Ortiz I, Fern´andez-Manj´on B. 2005. The< e-Game> project: facilitating the development of educational adventure games. Cognition and Exploratory Learning in the Digital Age (CELDA 2005):353–8. Nakhleh MB, Bunce DM, Schwartz AT. 1995. Chemistry in context: student opinions of a new curriculum. J Coll Sci Teach 25(3):174–80. Nichols M. 2003. A theory for elearning. J Educ Techno Soc 6(2):1–10. Nielsen J. 2000. Why you only need to test with 5 users. Available from: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html. Accessed July16, 2013. Oliverio JC, Beck D. 2009. Enhanced interaction in mixed social environments. In: Ferdig RF, editor. Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education. Hershey, Pa.: Information Science Publishing. p 146–62. Pange J. 2003. Teaching probabilities and statistics to preschool children. ITCE 1:163–73. Parker A. 2003. Identifying predictors of academic persistence in distance education. J US Distance Learn Assoc 17(1):55–62. Pearce C. 2003. Game Noir – A conversation with Tim Schafer. Game Studies 3(1). Available from: http://www.gamestudies.org/0301/pearce/. Accessed September 14, 2013. Pearce JM, Howard S. 2004. Designing for flow in complex activity. Proceedings of APCHI 2004, Berlin. p 349–58. Perry EL, Ballou DJ. 1997. The role of work, play, and fun in microcomputer software training. ACM SIGMIS Database 28(2): 93–112. Peterson M. 2006. Learner interaction management in an avatar and chat-based virtual world. Comput Assist Lang Learn 19(1):79–103. Pollock E, Chandler P, Sweller J. 2002. Assimilating complex information. Learn Instr 12:61–86. Polsani PR. 2003. Use and abuse of reusable learning objects. Journal of Digital Information, 3. Available from: http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/index. php/jodi/article/view/89/88%3Cbr. Accessed March 31, 2014. Prazak J. 1998. Homeowner/classroom/company partnership promotes real-life learning. Tech Directions 57(10):25–8. Quellmalz E, Timms M, Silberglitt M, Buckley B. 2012. Science assessments for all: integrating science solutions into balanced state science assessment systems. J Res Sci Teach 49(3):363–93. Raineri D. 2001. Virtual laboratories engage traditional undergraduate biology laboratories. Biochem Mol Biol Educ 29:160–2. Reeves B, Read JL. 2009. Total engagement: using games and virtual worlds to change the way people work and businesses compete. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. Rivers R, Vockell E. 1987. Computer simulations to stimulate scientific problem solving. J Res Sci Teach 24(5):403–15.
Available on-line through ift.org
Robinson P. 1998. Strategies for designing instruction in web-based computer conferencing environments. College Park, Md.: Univ. of Maryland Press. Rogers CR. 1969. Freedom to learn. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing. Rollings A, Adams E. 2003. Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on game design. San Francisco, Calif.: New Riders. Salaway G, Borreson Caruso J, Nelson MR. 2007. The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Available from: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0706/rs/ERs0706w.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2013. Salter G. 2003. Comparing online and traditional teaching–a different approach. Campus-Wide Information Systems 20(4):137–45. Saunders DR. 1987. Type differentiation indicator manual. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press. Science Game Center. Available from: http://www.sciencegamecenter.org/). Accessed January 26, 2014. Singh RP, Circelli D. 2005. Internet-assisted real-time experiments using the internet: hardware and software considerations. J Food Sci Edu 1:10–4. Skadberg YX, Kimmel JR. 2004. Visitors’ flow experience while browsing a web site: its measurement, contributing factors and consequences. Comput Hum Behav 20:403–22. Skinner BF. 1974. Behavior modification. Science 185(4154):813. Squire K. 2003. Video games in education. Int J Intell Games Simul 2(1):49–62. Squire K. 2007. Games, learning, and society: building a field. Educ Technol 4(5):51–4. Steinberg R. 2000. Computers in teaching science: to simulate or not to simulate? Am J Phys 68(7):S37. Strickland J, Roos D. 2013. How second life works. Available from: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/social-networking/ networks/second-life.htm. Accessed March 31, 2014. Sun K, Lin Y, Yu C. 2008. A study on learning effect among different learning styles in a Web-based lab of science for elementary school students. Comput Educ 50:1411–22. Sweller J. 1988. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn Sci 12:257–85. Sweller J. 1993. Some cognitive processes and their consequences for the organisation and presentation of information. Aust J Psychol 45(1):1–8. Sweller J. 1994. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learn Instr 4:295–312. Sweller J. 2003. Evolution of human cognitive architecture. Psychol Learn Motiv 43:215–66. Sweller J, van Merrienboer JJG, Paas FGWC. 1998. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ Psychol Rev 10:251–96. The engineering design process. Available from: http://www.sciencebuddies. org/engineering-design-process/engineering-design-process-steps.shtml# theengineeringdesignprocess. Accessed July, 2013. Tindall-Ford S, Chandler P, Sweller J. 1997. When two sensory modes are better than one. J Exp Psychol 3:257–87. Travis D. 2003. Discount usability: time to turn back the pendulum? Available from: http://www.userfocus.co.uk/articles/discount.html. Accessed July 16, 2013. Triacca L, Bolchini D, Botturi L, Inversini A. 2004. MiLE: systematic usability evaluation for e-learning Web applications. In: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2004(1):4398–405. Turner CW, Lewis JR, Nielsen J. 2006. Determining usability test sample size. Inte Encyclopedia Ergon Hum Factors 3:3084–8. Vredenburg K, Mao J-Y, Smith PW, Carey T. 2002. A survey of user-centered design practice, Proc. CHI 2002, ACM Press. p 472–8. Vygotsky LS. 1962. Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Wang S, Hsu HY. 2009. Using the ADDIE model to design second life activities for online learners. TechTrends 53(6):76–81. Watson J. 1913. Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychol Rev 20:158–77. Webster J, Trevino LK, Ryan L. 1993. The dimensionality and correlates of flow in human-computer interaction. Comput Hum Behav 9:411– 26.
Vol. 13, 2014 • Journal of Food Science Education 55
Review of online learning technology . . . West-Burnham J. 2005. Understanding personalization. In: West-Burnham J, Coats M, editors. Personalizing training. Stafford: Network Educational Press. What is the engineering design process. Available from: http://curriculum. vexrobotics.com/curriculum/intro-to-engineering/what-is-theengineering-design-process. Accessed July 5, 2013. Willard K, Duffrin MW. 2003. Utilizing project-based learning and competition to develop student skills and interest in producing quality food items. J Food Sci Edu 2:69–73. Wolf T. 2010. Assessing student learning in a virtual laboratory environment. IEEEE Trans Educ 5392:216–22.
56 Journal of Food Science Education • Vol. 13, 2014
Woods DR, Andrew N, Hrymak AN, Marshall RR, Wood PE, Crowe CM. 1997. Developing problem-solving skills: The Mcmaster problem solving program. J Eng Educ 86(2):75–91. Wurdinger S, Haar J, Hugg B, Bezon J. 2007. A qualitative study using project-based learning in a mainstream middle school. Improv Schools 10(2):15–161. Yang KY, Heh JS. 2007. The impact of internet virtual physics laboratory instruction on the achievement in physics, science process skills and computer attitudes of 10th-grade students. J Sci Educ Technol 16(5):451–61.
Available on-line through ift.org
