Content deleted Content added
m Journal cites:, templated 13 journal cites |
Added 15 dois to journal cites |
||
Line 20:
[[Cooperative learning]], though different in some ways from collaborative learning, also contributes to the success of teams in CSCL environments. The distinction can be stated as: cooperative learning focuses on the effects of group interaction on individual learning whereas collaborative learning is more concerned with the cognitive processes at the group unit of analysis such as shared meaning making and the joint problem space. The five elements for effective cooperative groups identified by the work of Johnson and Johnson are positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, [[social skills]], and group processing.<ref>Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (2002). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company, p. 95-118, {{ISBN|0-939603-12-8}}.</ref> Because of the inherent relationship between cooperation and collaboration, understanding what encourages successful cooperation is essential to CSCL research.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Marlene Scardamalia and Carl Bereiter wrote seminal articles leading to the development of key CSCL concepts: knowledge-building communities and knowledge-building discourse, intentional learning, and expert processes. Their work led to an early collaboration-enabling technology known as the Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environment (CSILE).<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Scardamalia | first1 = M. | last2 = Bereiter | first2 = C. | year = 1994 | title = Computer support for knowledge building communities | url = | journal = The Journal of the Learning Sciences | volume = 3 | issue = 3| pages = 265–283 | doi = 10.1207/s15327809jls0303_3 }}</ref> Characteristically for CSCL, their theories were integrated with the design, deployment, and study of the CSCL technology. CSILE later became Knowledge Forum, which is the most widely used CSCL technology worldwide to date.{{citation needed|date=August 2014}}
Other learning theories that provide a foundation for CSCL include [[distributed cognition]], [[problem-based learning]], [[group cognition]], cognitive apprenticeship, and situated learning. Each of these learning theories focuses on the social aspect of learning and knowledge building, and recognizes that learning and knowledge building involve inter-personal activities including conversation, argument, and negotiation.<ref name="resta" />
Line 36:
Currently, CSCL is used in instructional plans in classrooms both traditional and online from primary school to post-graduate institutions. Like any other instructional activity, it has its own prescribed practices and strategies which educators are encouraged to employ in order to use it effectively. Because its use is so widespread, there are innumerable scenarios in the use of CSCL, but there are several common strategies that provide a foundation for group cognition.
One of the most common approaches to CSCL is [[collaborative writing]]. Though the final product can be anything from a research paper, a Wikipedia entry, or a short story, the process of planning and writing together encourages students to express their ideas and develop a group understanding of the subject matter.<ref>Heimbuch, S., & Bodemer, D. (2015). Let's Talk about Talks: Supporting Knowledge Exchange Processes on Wiki Discussion Pages. In ''AAAI Technical Report on Wikipedia, a Social Pedia: Research Challenges and Opportunities (ICWSM-15)'' (Vol. WS-15-19), 56–61. Palo Alto, USA: AAAI Press.</ref> Tools like [[blogs]], [[interactive whiteboards]], and custom spaces that combine free writing with communication tools can be used to share work, form ideas, and write synchronously.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Onrubia | first1 = J. | last2 = Engel | first2 = A. | year = 2009 | title = Strategies for Collaborative Writing and Phases of Knowledge Construction in CSCL Environments | url = | journal = Computers & Education | volume = 53 | issue = 4| pages = 1256–1265 | doi = 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.008 }}</ref><ref name="wikis">{{cite journal | last1 = Larusson | first1 = J. | last2 = Alterman | first2 = R. | year = 2009 | title = Wikis to support the "collaborative" part of collaborative learning | url = | journal = International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning | volume = 4 | issue = 4| pages = 371–402 | doi = 10.1007/s11412-009-9076-6 }}</ref>
Technology-mediated discourse refers to debates, discussions, and other social learning techniques involving the examination of a theme using technology. For example, wikis are a way to encourage discussion among learners, but other common tools include mind maps, survey systems, and simple message boards. Like collaborative writing, technology-mediated discourse allows participants that may be separated by time and distance to engage in conversations and build knowledge together.<ref name="wikis" /><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Asterhan | first1 = C. | last2 = Schwarz | first2 = B. | year = 2010 | title = Online moderation of synchronous e-argumentation | url = | journal = International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning | volume = 5 | issue = 3| pages = 259–82 | doi = 10.1007/s11412-010-9088-2 }}</ref>
Line 44:
Problem-based learning is a popular instructional activity that lends itself well to CSCL because of the social implications of problem solving. Complex problems call for rich group interplay that encourages collaboration and creates movement toward a clear goal.<ref name="lu">{{cite journal | last1 = Lu | first1 = J. | last2 = Lajoie | first2 = S. | last3 = Wiseman | first3 = J. | year = 2010 | title = Scaffolding problem-based learning with CSCL tools | url = | journal = International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning | volume = 5 | issue = 3| pages = 283–98 | doi = 10.1007/s11412-010-9092-6 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Koschmann | first1 = T. | last2 = Feltovich | first2 = P. | last3 = Myers | first3 = A. | last4 = Barrows | first4 = H. | year = 1992 | title = Implications of CSCL for problem-based learning:Special issue on computer supported collaborative learning | url = | journal = Journal of the Learning Sciences | volume = 21 | issue = 3| pages = 32–35 | doi = 10.1145/130893.130902 }}</ref>
[[Project-based learning]] is similar to problem-based learning in that it creates impetus to establish team roles and set goals. The need for collaboration is also essential for any project and encourages team members to build experience and knowledge together. Although there are many advantages to using software that has been specifically developed to support collaborative learning or project-based learning in a particular ___domain, any file sharing or communication tools can be used to facilitate CSCL in problem- or project-based environments.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Blumenfeld | first1 = P. | last2 = Soloway | first2 = E. | last3 = Marx | first3 = R. | last4 = Krajcik | first4 = J. | last5 = Guzdial | first5 = M. | last6 = Palincsar | first6 = A. | year = 1991 | title = Motivating Project-Based Learning: Sustaining the Doing, Supporting the Learning | url = | journal = Educational Psychologist | volume = 26 | issue = 3/4| page = 369 | doi = 10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139 }}</ref>
When [[Web 2.0]] applications (wikies, blogs, RSS feed, collaborative writing, video sharing, social networks, etc.) are used for computer-supported collaborative learning specific strategies should be used for their implementation, especially regarding (1) adoption by teachers and students; (2) usability and quality in use issues; (3) technology maintenance; (4) pedagogy and instructional design; (5) social interaction between students; (6) privacy issues; and (7) information/system security.<ref>Bubas, G., Orehovacki, T., Coric, A. (2011). Strategies for implementation of Web 2.0 tools in academic education [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307915719_Strategies_for_implementation_of_Web_20_tools_in_academic_education]. 17th European University Information Systems International Congress, EUNIS 2011, Dublin, Ireland.</ref>
Line 52:
Though the focus in CSCL is on individuals collaborating with their peers, teachers still have a vital role in facilitating learning. Most obviously, the instructor must introduce the CSCL activity in a thoughtful way that contributes to an overarching design plan for the course. The design should clearly define the learning outcomes and [[Assessment in computer-supported collaborative learning|assessments]] for the activity. In order to assure that learners are aware of these objectives and that they are eventually met, proper administration of both resources and expectations is necessary to avoid learner overload. Once the activity has begun, the teacher is charged with kick-starting and monitoring discussion to facilitate learning. He or she must also be able to mitigate technical issues for the class. Lastly, the instructor must engage in [[Assessment in computer-supported collaborative learning|assessment]], in whatever form the design calls for, in order to ensure objectives have been met for all students.<ref>Shank, P (2008). [http://www.learningpeaks.com/instrcomp.pdf Competencies for online instructors.] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080703164002/http://www.learningpeaks.com/instrcomp.pdf |date=2008-07-03 }} Learning Peaks, Retrieved October 16, 2008.</ref>
Without the proper structure, any CSCL strategy can lose its effectiveness. It is the responsibility of the teacher to make students aware of what their goals are, how they should be interacting, potential technological concerns, and the time-frame for the exercise. This framework should enhance the experience for learners by supporting collaboration and creating opportunities for the construction of knowledge.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Kobbe | first1 = L. | last2 = Weinberger | first2 = A. | last3 = Dillenbourg | first3 = P. | last4 = Harrer | first4 = A. | last5 = Hämäläinen | first5 = R. | last6 = Häkkinen | first6 = P. | last7 = Fischer | first7 = F. | year = 2007 | title = Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts | url = | journal = International Journal of Computer Supported Learning | volume = 2 | issue = 2–3| pages = 211–224 | doi = 10.1007/s11412-007-9014-4 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Schoonenboom | first1 = J | year = 2008 | title = The effect of a script and a structured interface in grounding discussions | url = | journal = International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning | volume = 3 | issue = 3| pages = 327–41 | doi = 10.1007/s11412-008-9042-8 }}</ref> Another important consideration of educators who implement online learning environments is [[affordance]]. Students who are already comfortable with online communication often choose to interact casually. Mediators should pay special attention to make students aware of their expectations for formality online.<ref>Stahl, G. & Hesse, F. (2009). [http://ijcscl.org/?go=contents&article=77#article77 Practice perspectives in CSCL.] International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), pp. 109-114</ref> While students sometime have frames of reference for online communication, they often do not have all of the skills necessary to solve problems by themselves. Ideally, teachers provide what is called "scaffolding", a platform of knowledge that they can build on. A unique benefit of CSCL is that, given proper teacher facilitation, students can use technology to build learning foundations with their peers. This allows instructors to gauge the difficulty of the tasks presented and make informed decisions about the extent of the scaffolding needed.<ref name="lu" />
==Effects==
Line 75:
=== History ===
The advent of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) as an instructional strategy for [[second language acquisition]] can be traced back to the 1990s. During that time, the internet was growing rapidly, which was one of the key factors that facilitated the process.<ref name="Computer-Mediated Collaborative Lea">{{cite journal | last1 = Warschauer | first1 = M | year = 1997 | title = Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice | url = | journal = The Modern Language Journal | volume = 81 | issue = 4| pages = 470–481 | doi = 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05514.x }}</ref> At the time, the first [[wikis]] (such as [[WikiWikiWeb]]) were still undergoing early development,<ref>Ebersbach, Anja (2008), Wiki: Web Collaboration, Springer Science+Business Media, {{ISBN|3-540-35150-7}}</ref> but the use of other tools such as electronic discussion groups allowed for equal participation amongst peers, particularly benefiting those who would normally not participate otherwise during face-to-face interactions.<ref name="Computer-Mediated Collaborative Lea"/>
During the establishment of wikis in the 2000s, global research began to emerge regarding their effectiveness in promoting second language acquisition. Some of this research focused on more specific areas such as [[systemic-functional linguistics]], [[humanistic education]], [[experiental learning]], and [[psycholinguistics]]. For example, in 2009 Yu-Ching Chen performed a study to determine the overall effectiveness of wikis in an English as a second language class in Taiwan.<ref>Chen, Y. (2009). The effect of applying wikis in an English as a foreign language (EFL) class in Taiwan. Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 69(11), 4300.</ref> Another example is a 2009 study by Greg Kessler in which pre-service, non-native English speaker teachers in a Mexican university were given the task to collaborate on a wiki, which served as the final product for one of their courses. In this study, emphasis was placed on the level of grammatical accuracy achieved by the students throughout the course of the task.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Kessler | first1 = G | year = 2009 | title = Student-Initiated Attention to Form in Wiki-Based Collaborative Writing | url = | journal = Language Learning & Technology | volume = 13 | issue = 1| pages = 79–95 }}</ref>
Line 83:
=== Effectiveness and perception ===
Studies in the field of [[computer-assisted language learning]] (CALL) have shown that computers provide material and valuable feedback for language learners and that computers can be a positive tool for both individual and collaborative language learning. CALL programs offer the potential for interactions between the language learners and the computer.<ref>Chapelle, C. A. (2003). English language learning and technology. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.</ref> Additionally, students' [[autonomous language learning]] and [[self-assessment]] can be made widely available through the web.<ref>Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge University Press.</ref> In CSCL, the computer is not only seen as a potential language tutor by providing assessment for students' responses,<ref>Levy, M. (1997). CALL: Context and conceptualisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.</ref> but also as a tool to give language learners the opportunity to learn from the computer and also via collaboration with other language learners. Juan<ref>Juan, A. A., 1972. (2010). Monitoring and assessment in online collaborative environments: Emergent computational technologies for e-learning support. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.</ref> focuses on new models and systems that perform efficient evaluation of student activity in online-based education. Their findings indicate that CSCL environments organized by teachers are useful for students to develop their language skills. Additionally, CSCL increases students' confidence and encourages them to maintain active learning, reducing the passive reliance on teachers' feedback. Using CSCL as a tool in the second language learning classroom has also shown to reduce [[learner anxiety]].<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Hurd | first1 = S | year = 2007 | title = Anxiety and non-anxiety in a distance language learning environment: The distance factors as a modifying influence | url = | journal = System | volume = 35 | issue = 4| pages = 487–508 | doi = 10.1016/j.system.2007.05.001 }}</ref>
Various case studies and projects had been conducted in order to measure the effectiveness and perception of CSCL in a language learning classroom. After a collaborative internet-based project, language learners indicated that their confidence in using the language had increased and that they felt more motivated to learn and use the target language. After analyzing student questionnaires, discussion board entries, final project reports, and student journals, Dooly<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Dooly | first1 = M | year = 2007 | title = Joining forces: Promoting metalinguistic awareness through computer-supported collaborative learning | url = | journal = Language Awareness | volume = 16 | issue = 1| pages = 57–74 | doi = 10.2167/la413.0 }}</ref> suggests that during computer supported collaborative language learning, students have an increased awareness of different aspects of the target language and pay increased attention to their own language learning process. Since the participants of her project were language teacher trainees, she adds that they felt prepared and willing to incorporate online interaction in their own teaching in the future.
=== Cultural considerations ===
Line 91:
[[Culture]] may be thought of as composed of "beliefs, norms, assumptions, knowledge, values, or sets of practice that are shared and form a system".<ref>Rapport, N. (2014). Social and cultural anthropology: The key concepts. Routledge.</ref> [[Learning communities]] focused in whole or part on second language acquisition may often be distinctly multicultural in composition, and as the cultural background of individual learners affects their collaborative norms and practices, this can significantly impact their ability to learn in a CSCL environment.<ref name="doi.org">{{cite journal | last1 = Economides | first1 = Anastasios A. | year = 2008 | title = Culture‐aware collaborative learning. | url = | journal = Multicultural Education & Technology Journal | volume = 2 | issue = 4| pages = 243–267 | doi = 10.1108/17504970810911052 }}</ref>
CSCL environments are generally valued for the potential to promote collaboration in cross-cultural learning communities. Based on [[social constructivist]] views of learning,<ref>Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.</ref> many CSCL environments fundamentally emphasize learning as the co-construction of knowledge through the computer-mediated interaction of multivoiced community members. Computer-mediation of the learning process has been found to afford consideration of alternative viewpoints in multicultural/multilingual learning communities.<ref>Atsumi, T., Misumi, J., Smith, P., Peter, B., Peterson, M., Tayeb, M., … Tanzer, N. (1989). Groups, leadership and social influence. Recent Advances in Social Psychology: An International Perspective, 369–428.</ref> When compared to traditional face-to-face environments, computer-mediated learning environments have been shown to result in more equal levels of participation for ESL students in courses with native English speakers.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Warschauer | first1 = M | year = 2005 | title = Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom | url = | journal = CALICO Journal | volume = 13 | issue = 2–3| pages = 7–26 }}</ref> Language barriers for non-native speakers tend to detract from equal participation in general,<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Gunawardena | first1 = C. N. | last2 = Nolla | first2 = A. C. | last3 = Wilson | first3 = P. L. | last4 = Lopez-Islas | first4 = J. R. | last5 = Ramirez-Angel | first5 = N. | last6 = Megchun-Alpizar | first6 = R. M. | year = 2001 | title = A cross‐cultural study of group process and development in online conferences | url = | journal = Distance Education | volume = 22 | issue = 1| pages = 85–121 | doi = 10.1080/0158791010220106 }}</ref> and this can be alleviated to some extent through the use of technologies which support asynchronous modes of written communication.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Ku | first1 = H.-Y. | last2 = Lohr | first2 = L. L. | year = 2003 | title = A case study of Chinese student's attitudes toward their first online learning experience | url = | journal = Educational Technology Research and Development | volume = 51 | issue = 3| pages = 95–102 | doi = 10.1007/bf02504557 }}</ref>
Online learning environments however tend to reflect the cultural, [[epistemological]], and [[pedagogical]] goals and assumptions of their designers.<ref>McLoughlin, C., & Oliver, R. (2000). Designing learning environments for cultural inclusivity: A case study of indigenous online learning at tertiary level. ''Australasian Journal of Educational Technology'', 16(1). Retrieved from http://ascilite.org.au/ajet/submission/index.php/AJET/article/view/1822</ref> In computer-supported collaborative learning environments, there is evidence that cultural background may impact learner motivation, attitude towards learning and e-learning, learning preference (style), computer usage, learning behavior and strategies, academic achievement, communication, participation, knowledge transfer, sharing and collaborative learning.<ref name="doi.org"/> Studies variously comparing Asian, American and Danish and Finnish learners have suggested that learners from different cultures exhibit different interaction patterns with their peers and teachers in online.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Kim | first1 = K.-J. | last2 = Bonk | first2 = C. J. | year = 2002 | title = Cross-cultural Comparisons of Online Collaboration | url = http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2002.tb00163.x | journal = Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication | volume = 8 | issue = 1| pages = | doi = 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2002.tb00163.x }}</ref> A number of studies have shown that difference in Eastern and Western educational cultures, for instance, which are found in traditional environments are also present in online environments.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Liang | first1 = A. | last2 = McQueen | first2 = R. J. | year = 1999 | title = Computer assisted adult interactive learning in a multi-cultural environment | url = | journal = Adult Learning | volume = 11 | issue = 1| pages = 26–29 | doi = 10.1177/104515959901100108 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Thompson | first1 = L. | last2 = Ku | first2 = H. | year = 2005 | title = Chinese graduate students' experiences and attitudes toward online learning | url = | journal = Educational Media International | volume = 42 | issue = 1| pages = 33–47 }}</ref> Zhang<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Zhang | first1 = J | year = 2007 | title = A cultural look at information and communication technologies in Eastern education | url = | journal = Educational Technology Research and Development | volume = 55 | issue = 3| pages = 301–314 | doi = 10.1007/s11423-007-9040-y }}</ref> has described Eastern education as more group-based, teacher-dominated, centrally organized, and examination-oriented than Western approaches. Students who have learned to learn in an Eastern context emphasizing teacher authority and standardized examinations may perform differently in a CSCL environment characterized by [[peer critique]] and co-construction of [[educational artifacts]] as the primary mode of assessment.
==== Design implications ====
A "multiple cultural model" of [[instructional design]] emphasizes variability and flexibility in the process of designing for multicultural inclusiveness, focusing on the development of learning environments reflecting the multicultural realities of society, include multiple ways of teaching and learning, and promote equity of outcomes.<ref>Henderson, L. (1994). Reeves' pedagogic model of interactive learning systems and cultural contextuality (pp. 189–203). Presented at the Proceedings of the second international interactive multimedia symposium, Promaco Conventions Pty. Ltd. Perth.</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Henderson | first1 = L | year = 1996 | title = Instructional design of interactive multimedia: A cultural critique | url = | journal = Educational Technology Research and Development | volume = 44 | issue = 4| pages = 85–104 | doi = 10.1007/bf02299823 }}</ref> McLoughlin, C. & Oliver<ref>McLoughlin, C., & Oliver, R. (2000). Designing learning environments for cultural inclusivity: A case study of indigenous online learning at tertiary level. ''Australasian Journal of Educational Technology'', 16(1). Retrieved from http://ascilite.org.au/ajet/submission/index {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304071844/http://ascilite.org.au/ajet/submission/index |date=2016-03-04 }}.</ref> propose a social, constructivist approach to the design of culturally-sensitive CSCL environments which emphasizes flexibility with regard to specific learning tasks, tools, roles, responsibilities, communication strategies, social interactions, learning goals and modes of assessment [B5]. Constructivist instructional design approaches such as R2D2<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Willis | first1 = J | year = 1995 | title = A Recursive, Reflective Instructional Design Model Based on Constructivist-Interpretivist Theory | url = | journal = Educational Technology | volume = 35 | issue = 6| pages = 5–23 }}</ref> which emphasize reflexive, recursive, [[participatory design]] of learning experiences may be employed in developing CSCL which authentically engages learners from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
== Dyslexia in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning ==
Line 105:
The [[Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990]] (ADA) established that all students with disabilities must be included in all state and districtwide assessments of student progress. The ADA also guarantees equal accommodation for the disabled in, “employment, public accommodations, state and local government services, transportation, and telecommunications.”<ref name="Woodfine 2006"/>
In recent years, tools such as WebHelpDyslexia and other capabilities of web applications have increased the availability of tools to provide coping skills for students with dyslexia.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Avelar | first1 = L. O. | last2 = Rezende | first2 = G. C. | last3 = Friere | first3 = A. P. | year = 2015 | title = WebHelpDyslexia: a browser extension to adapt web content for people with dyslexia | url = | journal = Procedia Computer Science | volume = 67 | issue = | pages = 150–159 | doi = 10.1016/j.procs.2015.09.259 }}</ref>
=== Research on Dyslexia in E-Learning Environments ===
In 2006, Woodfine argued that dyslexia can impact the ability of a student to participate in synchronous e-learning environments, especially if activities being completed are text-based. During experimental qualitative research, Woodfine found that data suggested “learners with dyslexia might suffer from embarrassment, shame and even guilt about their ability to interact with other learners when in a synchronous environment.”<ref name="Woodfine 2006"/>
In a study by Fichten et al., it was found that assistive technology can be beneficial in aiding students with the progression of their reading and writing skills. Tools such as spell check or text-to-speech can be helpful to learners with dyslexia by allowing them to focus more on self-expression and less on errors.<ref name="Alsobhi, A. 2015">{{cite journal | last1 = Alsobhi | first1 = A. | last2 = Khan | first2 = N. | last3 = Rahanu | first3 = H. | year = 2015 | title = Personalised learning materials based on dyslexia types: ontological approach | url = | journal = Procedia Computer Science | volume = 60 | issue = | pages = 113–121 | doi = 10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.110 }}</ref>
=== Design implications ===
Line 117:
The [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050915012673 Dyslexia Adaptive E-Learning] (DAEL) is a suggested a framework that proposes four dimensions that cover 26 attributes. The proposed framework asks educators to make decisions based on perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and system adaptability:
*perceived ease of use: This refers to the degree to which a student believes that using the technology is free of effort.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite journal | last1 = Alsobhi | first1 = A. | last2 = Khan | first2 = N. | last3 = Rahanu | first3 = H. | year = 2015 | title = DAEL framework: a new adaptive e-learnng framework for students with dyslexia | url = | journal = Procedia Computer Science | volume = 51 | issue = | pages = 1947–1956 | doi = 10.1016/j.procs.2015.05.459 }}</ref> One technique to increase the perceived ease of use includes utilizing technology in which self-descriptiveness is present. This, coupled with clarity and logical flow of functions, makes the learning process easier and the interaction between the user and machine more convenient.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>
*perceived usefulness: Defined as how a student's performance, or learning performance, can be enhanced by a system. Studies show the impact of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness and their role in a users’ decision on whether to use a system again. Scaffolding as well as accommodations to the student's learning style will help overcome limitations of system operations, as will feedback geared toward system improvements.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>
*system adaptability: Refers to the user experiences and the way in which students are given control over a system to increase confidence and comfort in their learning. In addition to implications for the system, the flow of content shouldb be logical and the tone (attitude) of content should be encouraging.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>
| |||