EdCrumble, a data-enriched visual authoring design tool for blended learning
This paper presents an evaluation of edCrumble, a blended learning authoring tool for teachers. The tool visually represents learning designs and integrates data analytics to scaffold teacher design decisions. In addition to assessing the usability of edCrumble using UMUX questionnaire, analyses of...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión aceptada para publicación |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2020 |
| País: | España |
| Recursos: | Universitat Pompeu Fabra |
| Repositorio: | Repositorio Digital de la UPF |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositori.upf.edu:10230/46185 |
| Acesso em linha: | http://hdl.handle.net/10230/46185 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2020.3040475 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palavra-chave: | Authoring tools Blended learning Data-driven support Instructor interfaces Learning design |
| Resumo: | This paper presents an evaluation of edCrumble, a blended learning authoring tool for teachers. The tool visually represents learning designs and integrates data analytics to scaffold teacher design decisions. In addition to assessing the usability of edCrumble using UMUX questionnaire, analyses of participant views on the advantages and disadvantages of the tool in comparison to traditional course planning approaches and participant-elicited factors that can facilitate or hinder adoption of the tool are presented. Three evaluation workshops were held with teachers of different backgrounds, educational stakeholders, and students. Data-gathering instruments included interviews and questionnaires to collect qualitative and quantitative data. Further, design artifacts resulting from the workshops were analysed. The evaluation shows that the tool possesses specific features that facilitate the representation of and support for designing blended learning, uncovers the factors that may promote or inhibit its adoption, exposes its connection with solving actual educational challenges, and reveals the strengths and weaknesses in the tools usability. |
|---|