« February 2008 | Main | April 2008 »

March 27, 2008

Case studies for technology-enhanced learning

Talk 1: Evidence-centered design for learning -- he proposes a model for learning in gaming that can demonstrate.

Three models:
1. Proficiency
2. evidence, and
3. task model

ECDL design procedure
1. Identify learning objects
2. For each LO, dterimine its purpose, establish quality criteria, define rules for evulating design, produce a design, evaluate against criteria, and apply fixes when possible

ECDL says thesee are the high-level things they care about:
1. Engagement
2. Accessibility
3. Validity
4. ??
5. ??

10 KSAs -- knowledge, skills, attributes; he suggests a matrix that allows you to

TALK 2: Do schools and educators play an important role in 'bridging' the digital divide?

Their model is a pyramid/tiered model that starts at the base with access to hardware, software, and the Internet, then to the middle with how teachers and students are actually using the hardware and software, and culminating at the top of empowering individual students.

They found significant trends across all forms of SES schools over time. But of course higher SES schools have more software and hardware overall, and their growth trends tend to be greater over time.

Conclusions include that there is a digital divide between the ways that high SES schools use design and development software, and more low SES schools use "content" (read: 'drill and kill') software.

TALK 3: Waterford reading program (WERP-1)

TALK 4: Webcasting in the classroom

Question 1: Does webcasting affect attendance? Attending lecture is preferred to webcast, but students are tempted to skip more often if they know there will be a webcast.
Question 2: Does it affect performance? No real results in the literature. If they skipped class because there was a webcast, their performance seems to suffer.
Question 3: Do students think it helps them? In general, they think it is very helpful to them.
Question 4: How do they use it? To review missed classes, to study prior to exams, instead of reviewing notes, and after attending live lecture.
Question 5: How often do they use them? Very often.

Quasi experimental design, with two sections of a large-enrollment course.
Results: attendance was lower in the webcast section than the no-webcast section. Students seem to skip classes. 36% reported that they often or always watched webcast instead of coming to class.

Performance on tests and quizzes was the same across both sections.

March 26, 2008

help seeking in electronic learning

students aren't always good at determining when they need help.

three times that learners use tools well:
• there must be an opportunity for support (some type of help is there when the user needs its)
• learners recognize that there is an opportunity; he or she knows why the tool could be of help to them
• learners need to be motivated to look for help when they need it

in general, students tend not to use help enough or overuse it (use it too much, grow dependent on it or try to use it to answer questiosn instead of thinking it through themselves)

tools that provide direct information are more used, but meta-cognitive and generalized tools that support building skills to help oneself are less used.

they are asking: when students use help does it help their learning, when they provide advice do students use tools more, and does using tools help with student variables such as goal orientation, motivation, etc..?

Groups that received advice on how to use the help tools inline spent more time with the help tools. Mastery-oriented students used help tools significantly less frequently than did others.

Talk 3: Using or not using help tools during collaborative tasks

March 25, 2008

Developing socio-cultural frameworks for teachers' use of technology

The papers focused on adopting technology as part of a wider social practice in the classroom.

He is looking at computer algebra and dynamic geometry.

• He talks about technology and how it is used in the classroom as an adaptive process -- the affordances of the technology become "ingredients in" rather than "determinants of" the classroom practice
• Instructors tend to use structured investigation when using technology in the classroom, but they *talk* about using technology to enhance guided discovery

TALK 2: Exploiting interactive digital technology to enhance dialogic classroom interaction
• Based on a sociocultural, dialogic model of education
• technology should serve pedagogy
• they are discussing ways in which they can use the interactive white board to build cumulative knowledge over time and to bring the class together in a dialogue about ideas
• They are having a conference next year at Cambridge on the use of "whole-class interactive technologies"; it might be worth submitting a paper for this on using blogs and wikis

TALK 3: IWTs in Singapore
• Singaporean teachers often take a declarative approach, and students end up with a wide range of basic knowledge and skills, but the approach has somewhat dampened creativity, which is a concern
• She identifies 3 stages of development: supported didactic, interactive, and enhanced interactive

TPCK, or TPACK -- Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Mishrat and Koehler, have a handbook of TPACK

March 24, 2008

A framework for self-regulated learning

Researching and promoting self-regulated learning using software technologies.Pedagogy--Teaching for learning.

Date: 2005
ISBN: 1-85433-422-0

Computers as Tools for Metacognition

TALK 1: Learning with Hypermedia:
• Metacognitive tools, Extension of Computers as cognitive tools
• Computer environments are more open-ended, and students are increasingly in charge of their cognitive, metacognitive, and affective processing
• Moving beyond declarative knowledge into complex learning
• Very dynamic and simulative environments, but no "intelligent" (non-adaptive)
• Support and foster various self-regulatory processes, such as cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, and affective processes

• Students rarely develop deep conceptual understanding of science topics
• They suggest focusing on increasing the amount of time (motivational construct) to improve learning outcomes...I think...
• They build computer-aided systems that address various self-regulatory processes (multiple approaches to information
• IPT Model of SRL (Winne and Hadwin, 1998; Winne 2001) -- A model of self-regulatory learning in online learning
NOTE: This could be useful for the Journalism program
• CAMM: Cognitive, Affective, Motivational, and Metacognitive processing

email: razevedo@memphis.edu

TALK #3: Betty's Brain
Betty's brain is out of Vanderbilt and is a concept mapping system not unlike CSILE. The basic idea is that students teach Betty, an online person, about a concept, so they add ideas and concepts with data and metadata to teach her what she should know about the concept. They have access to resources and text resources.

Betty takes quizzes that they design -- its quite interesting.

He defines metacognition as self-monitoring and remediating against problem areas.

Findings: SRL students who didn't get external feedback began to monitor their own learning better and spent much more time trying to teach themselves in order to teach Betty.

TALK 5: Process for cognitive and metacognitive processing
They have a narrow focus, just cognitive, not motivational or affective dimensions
They try to foster planning, monitoring, and evaluation
• They use simulations which allow students to collect data and build models, and they study regulative support
• They ask not only what, but also why they thought certain things (what are the important variables, and why are those the relevant variables?
• They have built a tool called Co-Lab

Hello from AERA!

Hey, folks, blogging live from AERA this week. I'm looking forward to getting my learn on and sharing it with you. More good stuff soon!