Lecture Notes in Computer Science- P37 pptx

In another line, Kim and Sonnenwald [12] use the scale of learning preferences of Owens and Barnes to identify three learning styles: cooperative, competitive and individualized.. The co

In another line, Kim and Sonnenwald [12] use the scale of learning preferences of Owens and Barnes to identify three learning styles: cooperative, competitive and individualized The cooperative learning style indicates a preference for achieving individual goals while working in group; students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning The competitive learning style indicates a preference for learning in competition with others, often achieving individual goals; students work against each other to achieve a good grade and only some of them succeed Lastly, the individualized learning style indicates a preference for “working by one-self to ensure that one’s own learning meets a present criterion independently from the efforts of the other students” [13] Moreover, Grasha and Riechmann have devel-oped the Student Learning Styles Scale to measure the preferences of students in interacting with teachers and other students where they determine six categories: participative, avoidant, collaborative, competitive, independent and dependent [14]

It would seem logical to think that, for example, competitive and independent stu-dents feel more motivated through competition than through collaborative learning The idea of competition is usually linked to gaming, and games are often pleasing for any kind of student, In fact, the intention of incorporating gaming elements into learn-ing has received increaslearn-ing attention recently [15] [16] So, for example, Siddiqui, Khan and Katar [17] present a case of application of simulation games They tested a supply chain simulator and observed a higher sense of competition amongst students

In addition, their results clearly showed a significant increase in students’ motivation Games have a number of characteristics that make them attractive from a pedagogic and instructional point of view Therefore, there are some systems that implement games as an effective method to capture student interest, encourage active learning and increase motivation [18] as well as fun and learning [19] Fasli and Michalakopoulos [20] stay that “the nature of the game itself and the competitive element involved, act as an incentive for all students to put in more effort and even weaker students persist with playing the game”

Moreover, there are also studies that analyse possible negative factors of competi-tion and compare different competicompeti-tion approaches: anonymous, of known authorship, face-face, etc Yu, Chang, Liu and Chan [21] examine students’ preferences to-wards different kinds of competition and their satisfaction with regard to the learning experience Their results show that students prefer anonymous rather than face-to-face competition, since the former is more likely to reduce stress and other similar nega-tive emotions In fact, results from studies conducted in traditional classroom have showed negative effects of competition on interpersonal relationships and emotional states However, those studies involved face-to-face situations, where, without the use

of networking technologies, the identity of the participants could not be hidden ICT could mitigate the negative effects of face-to-face competition by hiding the identity of students if necessary An example of the success of this possibility is the QUESTournament system, where networking provides the support of anonymity that allows teachers to design learning strategies adapted to the anonymous competition mode Moreover, QUESTournament allows team competitions which combine the better of competitive learning with the better of the collaborative learning (as ex-plained below)

Finally, it is important to show that there is not an overabundance of research in the area of learning styles and e-learning Most of the studies focus on the discovery of

The QUESTournament system - previously called QUEST (Quest Environment for

Self-managed Training) system - is an innovative tool for active ICT-based learning,

whose aim is the development of cooperative and competitive workshops supported

by telematics This system pursues the development of student inquiry, documenta-tion and critical analysis skills, while raising the level of involvement and communi-cation between students and teachers

QUESTournament is accessible from every computer with Internet access and a Web browser and has been implemented as a module integrated into the e-learning platform Moodle in order to offer a new type of activity for the courses delivered through that platform

The QUESTournament system presents both individual and group work environ-ments in which teachers and students propose “challenges” that must be solved in a time-constrained way

The answers to the proposed challenges can be of any type of those most usual within the current assessment tests Therefore, each and every type of question (essay, tests, short answer…) can be included Besides, files in different formats can be at-tached to the answers Once submitted, these ones are rewarded by means of a vari-able scoring system

QUESTournament has been designed to motivate students through competitiveness and collaboration Hence, work sessions are presented as a contest that involves sev-eral tasks or challenges The contest ranking is based on the scores for each challenge and it is dynamically updated every time that a student’s answer is scored

Students are allowed and encouraged to submit their own challenges related to the course and to evaluate the corresponding answers Their work will be rewarded de-pending on the quality of the proposed challenge as well as the accuracy of the as-sessments and the feedback offered to other contestants In this way students get more involved and collaborate to enrich the learning process

As seen in Fig 1, the QUESTournament system displays a permanently updated top ranking with a link to a detailed scoreboard There are both individual and team rankings Besides, all the challenges proposed by teachers or students are shown in the main area of the screen The challenges proposed by students must be previously approved and scored by a teacher, although it is also possible to set up the system to allow automatic approvals In fact, one key design point of QUESTournament is flexibility There are many ways in which teachers can use the system; they can change the maximum and minimum values for the scoring function, the number of answers to be accepted, etc

Fig 1 Main screen of the QUESTournament system

Each challenge has a set of assessment criteria to be used by the author for evaluat-ing the answers that is known by every participant beforehand There is also a general set of criteria to evaluate the challenges proposed by the students

To sum up, QUESTournament encourages students to actively participate and gen-erate contents in a dynamic and changing environment Students’ submissions are anonymous but accessible to everyone, providing competitive but also reciprocal learning A more completed description of QUESTournament can be found in [24]

4 Research Methodology

Several studies [25] [26] suggest that students’ satisfaction and motivation are important factors in measuring the success or effectiveness of the e-learning process Consequently,

student achievement [29] and it is also a key indicator of educational quality [30] So, this study proposes the following set of hypotheses related to the students’ satisfaction and motivation according to their learning styles:

H1 The level of satisfaction of competitive students will be higher than that of

non-competitive students when using a non-competitive active learning tool

H2 The level of satisfaction of participative students will be higher than that of

non-participative students when using a competitive active learning tool

H3 The level of satisfaction of non-collaborative students will be higher than that of

collaborative students when using a competitive active learning tool

4.2 Methodology and Instruments

One instrument has been used in this study with two parts The first one is a ten-item survey based on the method developed by [25], which measures students’ satisfaction and motivation in e-learning environments It provides students with a five-score Likert-type scale, which ranges from ‘‘Strongly Disagree’’ to ‘‘Strongly Agree’’ Students’ satisfaction total score, generated by summing up all the scores, can range from a minimum of 10 (very low satisfaction level) to a maximum of 50 (very high satisfaction level) According to previous literature [31] [32], items relating to student interaction, collaboration and active learning have been included in the students’ satisfaction survey

The second part is a questionnaire with several questions about the students’ learn-ing style based on three of the categories of the Grasha-Reichmann Learnlearn-ing Style Scales (GRSLSS): participative, competitive and collaborative

4.3 Data Collection

Data were collected on line, using the instruments described above, during June 2006 The survey was set to collect responses using the “phpEsp” survey system Data sub-mission was anonymous with no link between a subsub-mission and its author

QUESTournament is currently being applied in different university courses in both Arts and Science degrees Specifically, during the academic year 2005 – 2006, the sys-tem was used in 10 courses in different degrees and diplomas taught at the University of Valladolid: Degree in Telecommunications Engineering, Diploma in Telecommunica-tions Engineering (several specialities) and Degree in Translation and Interpreting with

a total of 522 enrolled students Enrolment on most of these courses was below 50 stu-dents and most of them were taught by only one teacher However, there were some courses with over 100 students enrolled and courses which were taught by more than

one teacher (specifically, by two teachers) Therefore, the test environment counted with

a sufficiently varied course spectrum

5 Analysis and Results

The collected data have been analysed for group comparison using Student T-Test for students’ satisfaction This statistic assesses whether the means of two groups are statistically different from each other in order to be able to compare them

5.1 Analysis of Students’ Satisfaction and Motivation

In order to know if the system was successful, it is important to analyse the level of students’ satisfaction from the survey data About 30% students completed the survey (129 of the 447 students who used QUESTournament) The collected sample was provided online via the Web-based survey system Additionally, the collected sample had similar demographics characteristics as the university students’ population, thus appearing representative: boys and girls of arts and science with an average age of 21.8 years and a medium computer skills level

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Collaborative Competitive Participative Avoidant Independent Dependent

Fig 2 Learning Styles

In general terms, the experience has been positively evaluated by students (with an average sum score of 29.01) However, it is interesting to examine the effect of com-petitive active learning on students’ satisfaction in order to identify those students who benefit most from competitive learning Then, the students’ learning style is examined in Fig 2 It shows that most of them are participative and non-competitive, feel more comfortable with individual work and prefer group work only for special tasks, even though many students admit the advantages of working in group

Next, it is important to analyse the relationship between the dependent variable, student satisfaction, and the three following variables: number of competitive stu-dents, number of participative students and number of collaborative students Results from the analysis of T-Test for satisfaction according to students’ competitiveness are