1. AVIA
1.1. Research question
1.1.1. AVIA Research question 1: What is slowing the uptake of digital training in airport ground operations?
1.1.1.1. 1. LITERATURE
1.1.1.1.1. 1.1 Ground Operations regulations, frameworks and manuals:
1.1.1.1.2. 1.2 Studies and reports on Ground Operations training:
1.1.1.1.3. 1.3 Literature touching issues of workplace-based digital learning implementation, typical challenges, success scenarios and good practices:
1.1.1.2. 2. DATA COLLECTION
1.1.1.2.1. 2.1 Online survey
1.1.1.2.2. 2.2 Review of reports (refer to 1.2)
1.1.1.2.3. 2.3 Interviews
1.1.1.3. 3. OUTPUT
1.1.1.3.1. 3.1 A root-cause analysis to answer research question 1.
1.1.1.3.2. 3.2 Publication
1.1.1.3.3. 3.3 Conferences
1.1.2. Research question 2: What actions are needed to enable large scale adoption of digital training in airport ground operations?
1.1.3. Research question 3: How digital training in its various forms and modalities can provide added value to airport ground operation companies?
2. Adaptive Learning
2.1. Adaptive Learning DEFINITIONS
2.1.1. Adaptive learning — or adaptive teaching — is the delivery of custom learning experiences that address the unique needs of an individual through just-in-time feedback, pathways, and resources (rather than providing a one-size-fits-all learning experience).
2.2. Adaptive Learning SOURCES
2.2.1. McGraw Hill
2.2.1.1. What is Adaptive Learning Anyway?
3. How to promote learner participation in online learning?
3.1. Challenge of massive online learning
3.1.1. Among the key design characteristics of MOOCs, massiveness and low teaching involvement during delivery stages have been identified as the biggest challenges for MOOC design [5].
3.1.1.1. L. Guàrdia, M. Maina, A. Sangrá A, “MOOC Design Principles. A Pedagogical Approach from the Learner’s Perspective”, May 2013, retrieved from elearningeuropa.info - contact with domain owner | Epik.com depth_33_4_0.pdf on 21/6/13
3.1.2. High volume courses
3.1.3. Requires a lot of effort to facilitate
3.1.4. Difficult to follow-up, assess/measure
3.1.5. How to ensure collaboration sticks to context?
3.1.6. How learner contributions can be utilized in curriculum development?
3.2. Theories
3.2.1. WENGER (1998)
3.2.1.1. “From [Wenger’s] perspective our engagement with the world is social, even when it does not clearly involve interactions with others. Being in a hotel room by yourself preparing a set of slides for a presentation the next morning may not seem like a particularly social event, yet its meaning is fundamentally social. Not only is the audience there with you as you attempt to make your points understandable to them, but your colleagues are there too, looking over your shoulder, as it were, representing for you your sense of accountability to the professional standards of your community. A child doing homework, a doctor making a decision, a traveler reading a book – all these activities implicitly involve other people who may not be present.” (Wenger 1998, p. 57)these activities implicitly involve other people who may not be present.” (Wenger 1998, p. 57)
3.2.2. Hrastinski (2008)
3.2.2.1. Definition of participation: "Online learner participation is a process of learning by taking part and maintaining relations with others. It is a complex process comprising doing, communicating, thinking, feeling and belonging, which occurs both online and offline. "
3.3. Focus
3.3.1. High-Level Conception of Participation: the nature of actions that foster participation
4. Framework for contextual design of online learning instances
4.1. Constructivism
4.1.1. Constructivism according to Dewey
4.1.1.1. Article:
4.1.2. Situated Cognition
4.1.2.1. Anchored Instruction
4.1.2.2. Perception
4.1.3. Contextual / Context-based learning
4.1.3.1. Contextual Learning in Adult Education (Imel S. 2000)
4.1.4. Experiental learning (Kolb)
4.1.5. Human-Computer Interaction
4.2. Bloom´s Taxonomy (1956)
4.2.1. Bloom’s Taxonomy classifies learning objectives for students, from recalling facts to producing new and original work (linkissä tiivistelmä taxonomiasta)
4.2.2. Cognitive domain The original version of the taxonomy, the cognitive domain, is the first and most common hierarchy of learning objectives (Bloom, 1956). It focuses on the acquisition and application of knowledge and is widely used in the educational setting. This initial cognitive model relies on nouns, or more passive words, to illustrate the different educational benchmarks.
4.3. A Taxonomy for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (D. Krathwol & L. Anderson 2001)
4.3.1. In 2001, the original cognitive model was modified by educational psychologists David Krathwol (with whom Bloom worked on the initial taxonomy) and Lorin Anderson (who was a previous student of Bloom’s!) and published with the title A Taxonomy for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.
4.4. Contextual, situated learning = authentic learning
4.4.1. Herrington, Jan, et al. A Guide to Authentic E-Learning, Taylor & Francis Group, 2009.
4.5. Contextuality, situatedness = authentic learning
4.6. Literature
4.6.1. THOMPSON, K. S. Synergetic Learning Model: The Sum is Greater (2020)
4.6.2. TAWEI KU, D.; YUNG-HSIN HUANG. The Development of Procedure and Design Principle of Using Rapid E-learning Tools in Bloom’s Taxonomy. 2011
4.6.3. BARARI, N. et al. Designing and validating educational standards for e-teaching in virtual learning environments (vles), based on revised bloom’s taxonomy. Interactive Learning Environments, [s. l.], 2020.
4.6.4. ALMASSERI, M.; ALHOJAILAN, M. I. How Flipped Learning Based on the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning Affects Students’ Academic Achievements. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, [s. l.], v. 35, n. 6, p. 769–781, 2019.
4.6.5. MYO-KYOUNG KIM et al. Incorporation of Bloom’s Taxonomy into Multiple-Choice Examination Questions for a Pharmacotherapeutics Course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, [s. l.], v. 76, n. 6, p. 1–8, 2012.
4.6.6. MULCARE, D. M.; SHWEDEL, A. Transforming Bloom’s Taxonomy into Classroom Practice: A Practical yet Comprehensive Approach to Promote Critical Reading and Student Participation. Journal of Political Science Education, [s. l.], v. 13, n. 2, p. 121–137, 2017.
4.6.7. BAKER, R. K. A Framework for Design and Evaluation of Internet-Based Distance Learning Courses Phase One--Framework Justification, Design and Evaluation. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, [s. l.], v. 6, n. 2, 2003.
4.6.8. LAM, P.; MCNAUGHT, C. Design and evaluation of online courses containing media‐enhanced learning materials. Educational Media International, [s. l.], v. 43, n. 3, p. 199–218, 2006.
4.6.8.1. full text link
4.6.9. DETTMER, P. New Blooms in Established Fields: “Four Domains of Learning and Doing”. Roeper Review, [s. l.], v. 28, n. 2, p. 70–78, 2006.
4.6.10. e-kirja: Wills, S., Ip, A. & Leigh, E. (2011). The power of role-based e-learning: Designing and moderating online role play. Routledge.
4.6.11. e-kirja: Brown, John L.. Making the Most of Understanding by Design, Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development, 2004.
4.6.12. e-kirja: Stronge, J. H. (2013). Evaluating what good teachers do: Eight research-based standards for assessing teacher excellence. Routledge.
4.6.13. e-kirja: Piskurich, G. M. (2015). Rapid Instructional Design: Learning ID Fast and Right (3rd ed.). Wiley.
4.6.14. e-kirja: Participatory Design for Learning : Perspectives from Practice and Research, edited by Betsy DiSalvo, et al., Taylor & Francis Group, 2017.
4.6.15. e-kirja: Seel, Norbert M., et al. Instructional Design for Learning : Theoretical Foundations, BRILL, 2017.
4.6.16. Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Educational psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
4.6.16.1. Constructivism etc.
4.6.17. Constructivism guide to Learning Design
4.6.17.1. TÄSSÄ HYVIN KUVATTU GURUT JA HEIDÄN KONTRIBUUTIO TEORIOIHIN
5. MOOC design, constructivist approach
5.1. Argument: The under-estimated role of learning design in MOOCs
5.1.1. review of most popular MOOCs of our time and how learning design principles have been applied in design
5.1.2. construction of model for mooc design based on usability, engagement and motivation
5.1.3. pilot project