We present the ecosystem of e-learning (EeL) model, which can be applied to any higher education context, and which takes full account of all inhabitants and their interrelationships, not only the components, of the e-learning food chain. Specifically, this model was applied to our context within the University of the Western Cape, highlighting the role of the academic developer within the model. A key argument advanced in this paper is that academic developers should work to reduce complexities associated with emerging e-tools. The EeL model is used to emphasise the role of academic developers as mediators between components and relationships. Significance:•By the application of the EeL model, it is demonstrated that the use of e-tools and their alignment with pedagogies within any context must be sensitive to the entire ecosystem, with the recognition that this is simultaneously a top-down and a bottom-up process.applications, or both in combination. Also, numerous HEIs are adopting new online learning environments to replace the traditional pen and paper methods of subject instruction. 8 For this study, we define a LMS as a webbased application that is used for educational purposes to disseminate multimedia resources, organise resources in a chronological manner, communicate with course participants (students, teaching assistants, tutors and others), and assess students' competencies, amongst other capabilities. This assessment, for example, includes higher-order question types such as the Calculated Questions, Numeric Response, Questions Pools, and Lessons 9 . Moreover, we argue that all LMSs share the same four core functionality categories: communication, assessment, management and content.

No abstract

No abstract

In any science field, including physics, it is important to remain abreast of new assessment methods to cater to the 21st-century student. The rationale of this paper is to argue for a move away from the use of lower-order thinking skills (LOTS) in e-assessment in favor of higher-order thinking skills (HOTS), in line with Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. This builds on the work of Livingston, who argued that multiple-choice questions, while presenting some advantages, also entail disadvantages since there are forms of knowledge and skills that they cannot evaluate. This is especially true when certain forms of knowledge and skills cannot be accurately evaluated if the answer is presented within a list of options. Livingston argued that constructed-response questions are a fruitful avenue for addressing this shortcoming. Similarly, as Jones points out, while multiple-choice questions can—with careful design—be used to assess higher-order thinking, it is far more common to find them being used to test factual information recall, which requires LOTS. Schultz echoes this view and made use of randomized non-multiple-choice assignments, delivered via a Learning Management System (LMS) in a chemistry course. The benefits reported include automatic marking, reduction of copying among students due to randomization, and the targeting of higher-order learning outcomes since students were required to work out the answer rather than choosing it from a list. While Schultz did not use the term constructed-response question, Livingston defines it as “questions that require the test taker to produce the answer, rather than simply choosing it from a list.” In this paper, we aim to illustrate a range of new possibilities (within physics) for using constructed-response questions in an increasingly technologically advanced learning and teaching environment. While we use the Sakai LMS, the examples we offer are equally valid for other systems. The use of constructed-response questions to support physics learning and teaching within Sakai is, however, an underresearched area. This is especially the case for the calculated and numeric response questions, and their complementary tools, that we showcase.

Stoltenkamp, J. (2017). The third-space professional: a reflective case study on maintaining relationships within a complex higher education institution. Reflective Practice, 18(1): 14-22. http://dx. AbstractThis paper showcases the work of Third Space professionals in a complex higher education (HE) setting, and specifically its impact on the building of trust relationships and innovative approaches. It makes use of a case-study methodological approach, reflecting on the experiences of various stakeholders within pilot phases. The findings reveal challenges related to maintaining trust relationships, which can be threatened by technicist approaches. The reflective case study explores an innovative live-streaming project and the related pedagogical approaches by Instructional Design experts, as Third Space professionals, who have carved out a critical space within a HE setting. This investigation, and its related lessons, highlights that learning-and-teaching aspects, training and support, reconciliation of trust relationships, can be applied to Third Space professionals in other HE institutions.In 2014, the CIECT team proceeded to consult with, and identify, lecturers for the pilot phase of the project. Consultation processes with these lecturers has led to mindset changes related to the