Posted: February 14, 2014
Category: ACE, IJE, Journals | Tags: , 2012, 2013, ACE, Bernard Montoneri, Education, European Conference, HRMD, IAFOR, IAFOR Journal of Education, ICT, Journal, leadership, PDF, Taiwan
The IAFOR Journal of Education: Volume 2 – Issue 1 – Winter 2014
Publication: February 2014
Editor: Bernard Montoneri, Providence University, Taiwan
Click HERE to download the PDF of Volume 2, Issue 1 (Winter 2014)
It is my great pleasure and honour to introduce Volume 2 of IAFOR Journal of Education. This first issue is mostly a selection of papers submitted during:
1. The fourth annual Asian Conference on Education (ACE 2012), ‘Learning and Teaching Through Transformative Spaces’, held in Osaka in October 2012. ACE attracted 450 registrants and invited speakers from more than 40 countries; it was IAFOR’s biggest conference to date. 130 papers were submitted online in December 2012.
2. The inaugural European Conference on Education (ECE 2013). The First European Conference on Education was held alongside the Inaugural European Conference on Technology in the Classroom (ECTC 2013). The two conferences were held in Brighton, UK, in July 2013. The event attracted 350 delegates from over forty countries.
The first paper is co-authored by Henning Breuer, Heinrich Schwarz, Kristina Feller, and Mitsuji Matsumoto. Breuer et al. identify a potential value innovation by using a recent innovation project in higher education in Germany. The project had the goal to identify potential new learner-centered tools and services for university students with high business potential. Three different research methods (Ethnography, desk research, and blue ocean market analysis) were applied and combined to achieve a broader and deeper understanding of the topic. Breuer et al. show that only in combination can the derived ideas create a new market and meet customers’ needs at the same time.
The second paper by Esther Smidt, Jennifer Bunk, Bridget McGrory, Rui Li, and Tanya Gatenby propose to understand the experience of online courses from students’ perspectives. They apply a qualitative method in a specific context, namely that of a Mid-Atlantic mid-sized state university, and translate their findings into practical recommendations for instructors. Smidt et al. notably demonstrate that online courses have heavy workloads requiring student autonomy; students tend to complain about the lack of instructor support and about the lack of interaction, whether instructor-student or student-student.
Kiran Hashmi studies Human Resource Management and Development (HRMD) strategies and their effect on teachers’ efficiency within the Catholic Board of Education (CBE) schools of Pakistan whose teachers are graduates in educational leadership courses from a private teacher education institutes in Karachi. The paper endeavored to build a simple theoretical and conceptual framework where the effectiveness of HRMD strategies in educational leadership were studied to explore their impact on enhancing teachers’ efficiency.
The next paper, written by Kent Fredholm, conducts a qualitative survey mapping upper secondary school pupils’ attitudes towards the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) use for learning Spanish language. His study looks at ICT use for grammar practice. A group of pupils completed lesson diaries, reflecting upon web-based grammar exercises, comparing them to paper-based exercises, and a questionnaire survey on general attitudes towards ICT in language learning. Results show that the majority of participating pupils ask for a greater variety of tasks and see a need also for traditional forms of grammar practice, especially written exercises which give time to reflect upon grammar, syntax and vocabulary. They want ICT use to be an option, not a constraint.
The paper by Bernard Montoneri uses student evaluation of teachers to design a teaching improvement matrix based on teaching efficiency and performance by combining management matrix and data envelopment analysis (DEA). This matrix is designed to formulate suggestions to improve teaching. The research sample consists of 42 classes of freshmen following a course of English in Taiwan. The empirical findings show that proposed model can distribute all the evaluated classes into 4 quadrants depending on their performance and efficiency, identify the importance of each performance indicator, and suggest the improvement direction in different quadrants for all the evaluated classes. A study case of one inefficient class is presented in order to demonstrate the proposed model utility and feasibility.
The next paper is co-authored by KwongNui Sim and Russell Butson. They examine the degree to which twenty two undergraduate students used their personal computers to support their academic study. The students were selected based on their responses to a questionnaire aimed at gauging their degree of computer skill. Computer activity data was harvested from the personal computers of eighteen students and video footage of the students personal study sessions was gathered from a further four students. They conclude that for this group of students computers played an important role in their day to day lives, but the degree to which they were used in their academic study was lower than we had expected.
The study co-authored by Marilyn L. Balmeo, Allan B. Castro, Kristine Joy T. Caplis, Kizzylenn N. Camba, Jahziel Gillian M. Cruz, Marion G. Orap, and Joroma Sol T. Cabutotan applies Stimulus-Organism-Response theory to determine the perceived level of importance and perceived level of satisfaction of 399 college students in Saint Louis University, Baguio City, Philippines. Only 6 out of the 16 areas of the learning environment were identified with an existing significant relationship between respondents’ perceived level of importance and level of satisfaction, that is, guidance office, computer laboratory, science laboratory, campus security, clinic services, and janitorial services.
Finally, this issue contains a novelty: a section entitled “Key educational scholars”. Mariyana Ivanova Ilieva offers a rigorous summary of Geraskov’s theories and her paper is a fascinating addition to the journal. Mikhail Geraskov (1874–1957) was an eminent Bulgarian educator and extraordinary professor. He developed the scientific foundations of didactics and methodology of training. His work contributed a lot to the development of the Bulgarian pedagogy.
Please note that we welcome original research papers in the field of education submitted by teachers, scholars, and education professionals. They may send their manuscript even though they did not participate to one of the conferences held by IAFOR. We also welcome book reviews, reviews of the literature in the field, and contributions introducing key educational scholars. The next issue scheduled for August 15, 2014 will also be a selection of papers submitted during the above mentioned conferences.
IAFOR publications are freely accessible on the website (Open Access). Moreover, there is no publication fee for authors. Please find the guidelines at this end of this issue. Follow the new guide for authors if you wish to submit your paper. Finally, do not hesitate to join us on LinkedIn via the group entitled IAFOR journal of Education.