Cybertraining: Activities and Time Scheduling. A Case Study

  • Dorin IsocEmail author
  • Teodora Surubaru
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1134)


The extension of e-learning is unavoidable but the ways in which this is done differ. One new way is focused on changing the working relationship, more specifically, the teacher-learner relationship. The purpose of this paper is to detail technical elements and principles of a cybernetic training (CyTr) system that was developed and installed by the authors at and it is based on a method of learning by adaptive networking using a cybernetic trainer. The method assumes that students build problems that directly relate with their lack of knowledge regarding the topic. The built problems are further solved by students. The method continues with a ranking stage of problems opportunity, and a solutions usability stage. The stages are coordinated by a software that actively connects all the group students. The software monitors the learning activity, manages the database and evaluates automatically the students. The whole ensemble of CyTr brings a series of advantages to the school and to the learning activity, including a reduction of at least 40% on teacher’s activity.


Critical thinking Learning by adaptive networking Adaptive networking Cybernetic training Training plan Self-adaptivity Cybernetic trainer 


  1. 1.
    Akella, N.: The real deal on collaborative learning. Education 2(3), 23–29 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amir, F., Iqbal, S., Yasin, M.: Effectiveness of cyber-learning. In: FIE 1999 Frontiers in Education. 29th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Designing the Future of Science and Engineering Education. Conference Proceedings, vol. 2, pp. 13A2–7 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dostál, J.: The definition of the term “inquiry-based instruction”. Int. J. Instr. 8(2), 69–82 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Isoc, D., Surubaru, T.: Cyber-training: relations, connections, synergistic and negative reactions. In: EDUCON 2019 Engineering Education through Student Engagement, Dubai, pp. 86–95 (2019)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lepouras, G., Katifori, A., Vassilakis, C., Antoniou, A., Platis, N.: Towards a learning analytics platform for supporting the educational process. In: IISA 2014, The 5th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications, pp. 246–251 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mulnix, J.: Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educ. Philos. Theory 44(5), 464–479 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Paul, R., Elder, L.: Critical and creative thinking. Technical report, The Foundation for Critical Thinking, Dillon Beach, CA (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Soloway, E., Jackson, S., Klein, J., Quintana, C., Reed, J., Spitulnik, J., Stratford, S., Studer, S., Eng, J., Scala, N.: Learning theory in practice: case studies of learner-centered design. CHI 96(734), 189–196 (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weimer, M.: Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. Wiley, Hoboken (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Group for Reform and University Alternative (GRAUR)Cluj-NapocaRomania

Personalised recommendations