This article contains a description of a network-based Learning Environment Organizer entitled LEO, which takes its impetus from the Assimilation Theory of meaningful learning [1]. LEO represents a new approach to computer-mediated augmentation of face-to-face, or hybrid courses, and a different approach to distance learning course delivery. LEO provides the learner with a graphical advance organizer for the course, links to instructional content, various completion criteria for topics, and a visual representation of student progress. The organizer is non-linear in the sense that it maps only those prerequisites that are necessary for any given topic, creating many potential paths through the material. LEO is part of a software suite entitled “CmapTools” that provides a unique method of knowledge modeling or instructional content structuring. LEO can be used to organize CmapTools-type knowledge models or any other online instructional content. This work presents a description of the software's rationale, basic functionality, look and feel, and a discussion of an example course organizer.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AusubelD.NovakJ.HanesianH., Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc., New York, 1978.
2.
CoffeyJ., LEO: A Learning Environment Organizer to Accompany Constructivist Knowledge Models, doctoral dissertation, The University of West Florida, Pensacola, Florida, 2000.
3.
CoffeyJ.CañasA., Tools to Foster Course and Content Reuse in Online Instructional Systems, Proceedings of WebNet 2001: World Conference on the WWW and Internet, Orlando, Florida, pp. 223–227, October 2001.
4.
CañasA.FordK.CoffeyJ.ReichherzerT.SuriN.CarffR.ShammaD.HillG.BreedyM., Herramientas para Construir y Compartir Modelos de Conocimiento Basados en Mapas Conceptuales, Revista de Informática Educativa, 13:2, pp. 145–158, 2000.
5.
CoffeyJ., Issues in Hypermedia and Participatory Explanation, Proceedings of the Eighth Florida AI Research Symposium (FLAIRS '95), Melbourne, Florida, pp. 123–128, May 1995.
6.
FordK.CañasA.JonesJ.StahlH.NovakJ.Adams-WebberJ., ICONKAT: An Integrated Constructivist Knowledge Acquisition Tool, Knowledge Acquisition Journal, 3, pp. 215–236, 1991.
7.
FordK.CoffeyJ.CañasA.TurnerC.AndrewsJ., Diagnosis and Explanation by a Nuclear Cardiology Expert System, International Journal of Expert Systems, 9:4, pp. 499–506, 1996.
8.
CañasA.CoffeyJ.ReichherzerT.HillG.SuriN.CarffR.MitrovichT.EberleD., El-Tech: A Performance Support System with Embedded Training for Electronics Technicians, Proceedings of the Eleventh Florida AI Research Symposium (FLAIRS 98), Sanibel Island, Florida, pp. 79–83, May 1998.
9.
HerronC., An Investigation of the Effectiveness of Using an Advance Organizer to Introduce Video in a Foreign Language Classroom, The Modern Language Journal, 78:2, Summer 1994.
10.
KangS., The Effects of Using an Advance Organizer on Students' Learning in a Computer Simulation Environment, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 25:1, pp. 57–65, 1996.
11.
JonesM.FarquharJ.SurryD., Using Meta-Cognitive Theories to Design User Interfaces for Computer-Based Learning, Educational Technology, pp. 12–22, July-August 1995.
12.
HerronC.HanleyJ.ColeS., A Comparison Study of Two Advance Organizers for Introducing Beginning Foreign Language Students to Video, The Modern Language Journal, 79:3, pp. 387–395, 1995.
13.
KrawchukC., Pictorial Graphic Organizers, Navigation, and Hypermedia: Converging Constructivist and Cognitive Views, doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, 1996.
14.
NovakJ.GowinD., Learning How to Learn, Cornell Press, Ithaca, New York, 1984.
15.
NovakJ., Learning, Creating and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations, Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, 1998.
16.
DaRosD.OnwuegbuzieA., The Effect of Advance Organizers on Achievement in Graduate-Level Research Methodology Courses, National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal—Electronic, 12:3, pp. 83–91, 1999.
17.
ShapiroA., The Relationship between Prior Knowledge and Interactive Overviews during Hypermedia-Aided Learning, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20:2, pp. 143–167, 1999.
18.
HerronC.YorkH.ColeS.LindenP., A Comparison Study of Student Retention of Foreign Language Video, Modern Language Journal, 82:2, pp. 237–247, 1998.
19.
PetersonD.BeanJ., Using a Conceptual Matrix to Organize a Course in the History of Economic Thought, Journal of Economic Education, 29:3, pp. 262–273, 1998.
20.
LambiotteJ.DansereauD., Effects of Knowledge Maps and Prior Knowledge on Recall of Science Lecture Content, Journal of Experimental Education, 60:3, pp. 189–201, 1992.
21.
HallR.DonnellA., Cognitive and Affective Outcomes of Learning from Knowledge Maps, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, pp. 94–101, 1996.
22.
ReweyK.DansereauD.DeesS.ScaggsL.PitreU., Scripted Cooperation and Knowledge Map Supplements: Effects on the Recall of Biological and Statistical Information, Journal of Experimental Education, 60:2, pp. 93–107, 1992.
23.
WillermanM.Mac HargR., The Concept Map as an Advance Organizer, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28:8, pp. 705–711, 1991.
24.
CoffeyJ., Institutional Memory Preservation at NASA Glenn Research Center, Technical Report, NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, April 1999.
25.
FurnasG., The Fisheye View: A New Look at Structured Files, Bell Laboratories Technical Memorandum #81-11221-9, October 12, 1981.
26.
CardK.MackinlayJ.SchneidermanB., Focus and Context, in Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision to Think, CardS.MackinlayJ.SchneidermannB. (eds.), Morgan Kaufmann Publications, San Francisco, 1999.
