Proceedings of The ICECRS
Vol 1 No 1 (2016): "Generating Knowledge through Research", 25-27 October 2016, CAS Auditorium - Universiti Utara Malaysia
Articles

RECOGNIZING POSSIBLE LIMITATIONS OF E-LEARNING THROUGH EDMODO
MENGAKUI KETERBATASAN E-LEARNING MELALUI EDMODO


View Article
  • Farha Alia Mokhtar
Farha Alia Mokhtar
Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia
Picture in here are illustration from public domain image or provided by the author, as part of their works
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21070/picecrs.v1i1.607
Published October 30, 2016
Keywords
  • Edmodo,
  • E-learning,
  • Perceptions and Virtual limitations
How to Cite
Mokhtar, F. A. (2016). RECOGNIZING POSSIBLE LIMITATIONS OF E-LEARNING THROUGH EDMODO. Proceedings of The ICECRS, 1(1), picecrs.v1i1.607. https://doi.org/10.21070/picecrs.v1i1.607

Copyright (c) 2016 Farha Alia Mokhtar

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Funding data

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

When addressing the topic of e-learning integration via Edmodo, two concerns arise. First, isEdmodo vulnerable to internal or external factors which may become barriers to its effective implementation? Second, if Edmodo has limitations to its use, how can it be diminished to ensure optimum teaching learning experiences? This paper investigates contributing factors that limit Edmodo’s application as a learning management system (LMS) for educational purposes. The results suggest possible limitations of Edmodo; lack of face-to-face interaction, facilities that might not be available to all students and distractions that may pose a threat in online learning environments. Propositions to overcome those limitations suggested in this paper are; face to face interaction to be maintained while supplemented with assignments through Edmodo, ensuring facilities are provided or available prior to execution and inculcate intrinsic motivation for students to stay focus when completing tasks online.

View Article

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Ahmad, J., Mohamad, S. J. A. N. &Saat, A. (2004) A Study on School Students Preferred Learning Styles. Shah Alam, Malaysia; InstitutPenyelidikan, Pembangunan danPengkomesilan (IDRC).
  2. Amrein-Beardsley, A., Foulger, T. S., Toth, M. (2007).Examining the development of a hybrid degree program: Using student and instructor data to inform decision making. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 331-357.
  3. Alexa Internet. (2015, May).Edmodo.com Site Overview. Retrieved from http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/edmodo.com
  4. Bell, B. S., &Federman, J. E. (2013).E-Learning in Post-secondary Education.
  5. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and research design; Choosing among five designs. Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.
  6. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage Publications.
  7. Denzin, N. (2010). On elephants and gold standards.Qualitative Research, 10, 269–272.
  8. Dobler, E. (2012, February). Flattening Classroom Walls: Edmodo Takes Teaching and Learning across the Globe. Retrieved from http://www.dentonisd.org/cms/lib/TX21000245/ Centricity/Domain/3150/Flattening%20Classroom%20Walls.pdf
  9. Dzakiria, H. (2008). Pragmatic approach to qualitative case study research learning by doing: A case of distance learning research in Malaysia. Sintok: Universiti Utara Malaysia Press.
  10. Dzakiria, H. (2004). "The Teacher is Always There, But Isn't". Distance Learners' Perspectives on Distance Learning at Universiti Utara Malaysia (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok.
  11. Edmodo.(2016). About Edmodo | How we got started. Retrieved July 15, 2016, from https://www.edmodo.com/about
  12. European Comission. (2001). The eLearning Action Plan: Designing tomorrow’s education, 20. Brussels.
  13. Fraenkel, J. R. &Wallen, N. E. (2003).How to design and evaluate research in education (5thed.). New York: McGraw-Hill
  14. Gamble, C., Aliponga, J., Koshiyama, Y., Wilkins, M., Yoshida, K., & Ando, S. (2013). University students’ beliefs, perceptions and attitudes towards communicative language teaching.MEXTESOL, 32(2).
  15. Hung, D., &Khine, M.S. (Eds). (2006). Engaged learning with emerging technologies. Netherlands: Springer
  16. Imel, S. (2002).Trends and Issues Alert.E-Learning. Retrieved from http://www.ericacve.org/pubs.asp
  17. Jacob, S. A., &Furgerson, S. P. (2012). Writing Interview Protocols and Conducting Interviews: Tips for Students New to the Field of Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 17, 1-10. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ990034.pdf
  18. Kavcic, A., Pesek, M., Bohak, C., Marolt, M. (2013, June).Edoo: An Online Match-Making Portal for Educational Content Production. Challenges and Impacts for Individuals, Organizations and Society. Paper presented at 26th Bled eConferenceeInnovations.
  19. Lu, J., & Churchill, D. (2013).Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Conference International Council for Educational Media (ICEM): Creating Personal Learning Environments to Enhance Learning Engagement IEEE Annual Conference International Council for Educational Media (Ed.).
  20. Maguth, B. M. &Harshman, J. R. (2013).Social Networking and the Social Studies for Citizenship Education.Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, Vol. 9.
  21. Manohan, R. (2014, December 12). What Happens When Kids Don't Have Internet at Home? Retrieved September 19, 2016, from http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/12/what-happens-when-kids-dont-have-internet-at-home/383680/
  22. McClain, C. & Brown, A. (2013). Literature 2.0: An Exploration of Character using Edmodo. Department of Education, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, June 26, 2013, 55-60
  23. Mokhtar, F. A. (2016). Rethinking Conventional Teaching In Language Learning And Proposing Edmodo As Intervention: A Qualitative Analysis.
  24. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology (MOJET), 4(2), 22-37. Retrieved from http://www.mojet.net/article/rethinking-conventional-teaching-in-language-learning-and-proposing-edmodo-
  25. as-intervention
  26. Plotnick, E. (1997). Concept mapping: a graphical system for understanding the relationship between concepts. Journal of Information and Technology, 234-240.
  27. Rahamat, R., Shah, P. M., Din, R., &Abd. Aziz, J. (2011). Students’ Readiness and Perceptions toward using Mobile Technologies for Learning the English Language Literature Component. The English Teacher, 5, 69-84.
  28. Ramayah, T., Ahmad, N. H., & Lo, M. (2010). The role of quality factors in intention to continue using an e-learning system in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 5422-5426. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.885
  29. Ravenscroft, A. (2001). Designing E-learning Interactions in the 21st Century: Revisiting and Rethinking the Role of Theory. European Journal of Education, 36(2), 133-156.
  30. Redman, C., & Trapani, F. (2012).Experiencing new technology: exploring pre-service teachers' perceptions and reflections upon the affordances of social media. Paper presented at Joint AARE APERA International Conference, Sydney, Australia.
  31. Rodriguez, M.C., Ooms, A., Montanez, M. & Yan, Y.L. (2005). Perceptions of Online Learning Quality Given Comfort with Technology, Motivation to Learn Technology Skills, Satisfaction, and Online Learning Experience. Presented at American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting
  32. Ramayah, T., Ahmad, N. H., & Lo, M. (2010). The role of quality factors in intention to continue using an e-learning system in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 5422-5426. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.885
  33. Schiller, K. (2011). Information Today-Volume 28, Number 8-September 2011. Retrieved from http://www.infotoday.com/it/sep11/index.shtml
  34. Soltan, L. (2016). Digital Divide: The Technology Gap between the Rich and Poor. Retrieved September 19, 2016, from http://www.digitalresponsibility.org/digital-divide-the-technology-gap-between-rich-and-poor/
  35. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication
  36. Syed Mohamad, S. J. A. N. (2004). Style of Learning among Malay Undergraduates in Malaysian Universities. Shah Alam, Malaysia: UniversitiTeknologi MARA.
  37. Syed Mohamad, S. J. A. N., Talib, R., &Faridah, A. (2007, June).A True Experience In Managing An E-learning Program AtUniversitiTeknologi MARA. Paper presented at iMEC, Penang.
  38. Tomassini, J. (2013). Edmodo Now Closer to Social Network.Australian Educational Computing, vol. 27
  39. Vernadakis, N. (2012). A comparison of student satisfaction between traditional and blended technology course offerings in Physical Education.Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(1).
  40. Wallace, A (2013). Social Learning Platforms and the Flipped Classroom.IEEE.Retrieved from ISBN: 978-1-4673-5094-5/13
  41. Walsham, G. (1993). Interpreting information systems in organizations.Chichester, NH: Wiley.
  42. Yin, R. K (2011). Qualitative Research: From Start to Finish. United States of America. The Guilford Press.