Using a Network Simulation Tool to engage students in Active Learning enhances their understanding of complex data communications concepts

Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology Series

Volumn 42, Issue , 2005, Pages 223-228

  Goldstein, Cecil ^a   Leisten, Susanna ^a   Stark, Karen ^a   Tickle, Alan ^a  

^a QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Active learning; Data communication; Evaluation; Simulation; Teaching

Indexed keywords

ACTIVE LEARNING; COMPLEX DATA; COMPUTER NETWORKING; DATA-COMMUNICATION; DEEP LEARNING; DYNAMIC PROCESS; EVALUATION; EVALUATION FRAMEWORK; LEARNING PROCESS; MEASURED RESULTS; NETWORK SIMULATION TOOLS; SIMULATION;

COMPUTER NETWORKS; CONVOLUTIONAL CODES; TEACHING; TOOLS;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84873519893     PISSN: 14451336     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. Biggs, J. B. (1999): Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does. Buckingham England Philadelphia, Society for Research into Higher Education, Open University Press.
2. Bonwell, C., & Eison, J. (1991): Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC, The George Washington University.
3. Cameron, B. (2003): Effectiveness of simulation in a hybrid online networking course. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(1), 51.
4. Carbone, A., & Kaasbøll, J. J. (1998): A survey of methods used to evaluate computer science teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Joint Conference Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education, Dublin City Univiversity, Ireland.
5. Ehrmann, S. C. (1995): Asking the Right Question: What Does Research Tell Us About Technology and Higher Learning? Change, 27(2), 8.
6. Gatto, D. (1993): The use of interactive computer simulations in training. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 144-156.
7. Gurka, J. S., & Citrin, W. (1996): Testing effectiveness of algorithm animation. Proc. The IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
8. Jensen, D., Self, B., Rhymer, D., Wood, J., & Bowe, M. (2002): A rocky journey toward effective assessment of visualization modules for learning enhancement. Engineering Mechanics. Educational Technology & Society, 5(3), 150-162.
9. Laurillard, D. (2000): Rethinking university teaching a conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London New York, Routledge/Falmer.
10. Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001): Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187-198.
11. Naps, T., R̈ßling G., et al. (2002): Exploring the role of visualisation and engagement in computer science education: ITiCSE 2002 working group report. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 35(2).
12. Perkins, D., & Salomon, G. (1992): Transfer of Learning. International Encyclopedia of Education, (2nd ed.). Oxford, Pergamon Press.
13. Reeves, T. C., & Hedberg, J. G. (2003): Interactive Learning Systems Evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J, Educational Technology Publications.
14. Salomon, G. (2000, July 11, 2000): It's not just the tool, but the educational rationale that counts. Keynote address at Ed-Media 2000, Montreal. Accessed July 24, 2004. http://construct.haifa.ac.il/~gsalomon/edMedia2000.html.
15. Yaverbaum, G., & Nadarajan, U. (1996): Learning basic concepts of telecommunications: an experiment in multimedia and learning. Computers & Education, 26(4), 215-224.