October 2007 Volume 10 Number 4 - Educational Technology ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Herring, S. (1993). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication. Electronic Journal of Communication, 3 (2), 1-17. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1977), Learning Together and Alone; Cooperation, Competition and Individualization, Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1984). Circles of Learning, Washington, DC: Assoc. Supervision and Curriculum Dev. As quoted by The Foundation Coalition (2005). Positive Interdependence, Individual Accountability, Promotive Interaction: Three Pillars of Cooperative Learning, retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.foundationcoalition.org/publications/brochures/acl_piiapi.pdf. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1987). Creative conflict, Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R.T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research, Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1994). Leading the cooperative school (2 nd Ed.), Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Kagan, S. (1997). Cooperative learning, San Juan Capistrano, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning. Kagan, S. (1998). Teams of four are magic! Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, 9 (1), 9. Kerr, N.L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 819-828. Kerr, N.L., & Bruun, S.E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: free rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 78-94. Koschmann, T.D. (1999). Computer support for collaboration and learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 495- 498. Koschmann, T. (2001). Revisiting the paradigms of instructional technology. In G. Kennedy, M. Keppell, C. McNaught & T. Petrovic (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18 th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Melbourne: The University of Melbourne, 15-22. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Levin, P. (2002a). Teamwork Tutoring: Helping Students Working On Group Projects To Develop Teamwork, retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.teamwork.ac.uk/MGS_teamwork_tutoring.PDF. Levin, P. (2002b). Running group projects: dealing with the free-rider Problem. Planet, 5, 7-8. Li, L (2001). Some Refinements on Peer Assessment of Group Projects. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26 (1), 5-18. Lipponen, L. (2002). Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of the Computer-supported Collaborative Learning 2002 Conference, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 72-81. Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Hakkarainen, K., & Palonen, T. (2002). Effective participation and discourse through a computer network: Investigating elementary students' computer-supported interaction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27, 353-382. Millis, B. J., & Cottell, P. G., Jr. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty, Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press. 267
Panitz, T., & Panitz, P. (1998). Encouraging the Use of Collaborative Teaching In Higher Education, retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/tedsarticles/encouragingcl.htm. Roberts, T. S. (2004). Online Collaborative Learning in Higher Education, Hershey, PA: Information Science. Roberts, T. S. (2005). Self, Peer, and Group Assessment in E-Learning, Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In O'Malley, C.E., (Ed.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Heidelberg: Springer, 69-97. Ruël, G. C., Bastiaans, N., & Nauta, A. (2003). Free-riding and team performance in project education, retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://som.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/reports/themeA/2003/03A42/03a42.pdf. Simonson, M (2000). Equivalency Theory and Distance Education, Tech Trends. 43 (5), 5-8. Slavin, R. (1987). Cooperative Learning: Student Teams, Washington: National Education Association. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Teaching & Assessment Network (1999). Developing and assessing students’ group work skills: Notes from the meeting of the Teaching & Assessment Network 16th December 1999, retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.le.ac.uk/teaching/tan/pdf/groups.pdf. Tinzmann, M. B., Jones, B. F., Fennimore, T. F., Bakker, J., Fine, C., & Pierce, J. (1990). What is the collaborative classroom, retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.arp.sprnet.org/Admin/supt/collab2.htm. University of South Australia (2001). Student experience survey 2000, Unpublished report, Adelaide: University of South Australia. As quoted in Burdett, J. (2003). Making Groups Work: University Students’ Perceptions. International Education Journal, 4 (3), retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/education/iej/ articles/v4n3/Burdett/paper.pdf. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Watkins, R., & Daly, V. (2003). Issues raised by an Approach to Group Work for Large Numbers. Paper presented at the BEST Conference, April 9-11, 2003, Brighton, UK. Webb, N. (1994). Group Collaboration in Assessment: Competing Objectives, Processes, and Outcomes, retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/ 80/13/69/9f.pdf. Winkworth, A., & Maloney, D. (2002). An exploration of apathy and enthusiasm in task-focused groups: implications for task design and supervisor intervention, retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/conferences/teach_conference00/papers/winkworth-maloney.html. 268
Page 1 and 2:
October 2007 Volume 10 Number 4
Page 3 and 4:
Abstracting and Indexing Educationa
Page 5 and 6:
The Relationship of Kolb Learning S
Page 7 and 8:
a question about learning together
Page 9 and 10:
affordances of networked learning s
Page 11 and 12:
included a unit on collaborative le
Page 13 and 14:
on at different times and work indi
Page 15 and 16:
• the numerous evaluation studies
Page 17 and 18:
wanted to work. The same inquiry pr
Page 19 and 20:
usability studies have a place in t
Page 21 and 22:
Milrad, M., & Jackskon, M. (2007).
Page 23 and 24:
information- and communication tech
Page 25 and 26:
Interactive Examination, the studen
Page 27 and 28:
Table 1. Criteria for grading OD st
Page 29 and 30:
content. Differences in the attitud
Page 31 and 32:
Even though further research on the
Page 33 and 34:
Olofsson, A. D. (2007). Participati
Page 35 and 36:
Etzioni (1993) points out that an i
Page 37 and 38:
programme. They are rather construc
Page 39 and 40:
to be that each individual trainee
Page 41 and 42:
Bernmark-Ottosson, A. (2005). Demok
Page 43 and 44:
The Knowledge Foundation (2005). IT
Page 45 and 46:
Figure 1. Design Theories in contex
Page 47 and 48:
attention as we frequently discuss
Page 49 and 50:
Blog Reflection This design concept
Page 51 and 52:
Narrative Structure (Form) Content
Page 53 and 54:
Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (200
Page 55 and 56:
critique, neither do the single ind
Page 57 and 58:
suggested by Ljungberg (1999b) we c
Page 59 and 60:
the del.icio.us site (see figure 3)
Page 61 and 62:
Device cultures It is not only the
Page 63 and 64:
uilt using a camera-equipped PDA ru
Page 65 and 66:
Jones, C., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L.,
Page 67 and 68:
Milrad, M., & Spikol, D. (2007). An
Page 69 and 70:
components to be able to deal with
Page 71 and 72:
compulsory throughout the project.
Page 73 and 74:
only with their existing day-today
Page 75 and 76:
As our work continues, we will try
Page 77 and 78:
cognition as well as self-regulated
Page 79 and 80:
Mobile mind map tool for stimulatin
Page 81 and 82:
the pictorial knowledge representat
Page 83 and 84:
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (19
Page 85 and 86:
Al-A'ali, M. (2007). Implementation
Page 87 and 88:
complex cognitive skills involve em
Page 89 and 90:
Table 1. CAT and a linear mathemati
Page 91 and 92:
It is agreed that the difficulty le
Page 93 and 94:
Figure 7. Our newly added factors i
Page 95 and 96:
question factors according to IRT;
Page 97 and 98:
Instructure 1 Login User-ID Passwor
Page 99 and 100:
Shute, V., & Towle, B. (2003). Adap
Page 101 and 102:
distinguish between partial knowled
Page 103 and 104:
esponse is identified, then the sco
Page 105 and 106:
are stored in the answer record and
Page 107 and 108:
2 (7) MNSQ = ∑WniZ ni ∑ Wni =
Page 109 and 110:
in the course. A randomized block d
Page 111 and 112:
To test whether ET can effectively
Page 113 and 114:
course, more comparison tests could
Page 115 and 116:
Fleischmann, K. R. (2007). Standard
Page 117 and 118:
educational standards in practice t
Page 119 and 120:
laboratory activities, which are bu
Page 121 and 122:
process is currently a largely top-
Page 123 and 124:
Hsu, Y.-S., Wu, H.-K., & Hwang, F.-
Page 125 and 126:
evolution with computing technology
Page 127 and 128:
Resources 0.55 0.72 e17 In my schoo
Page 129 and 130:
teachers’ instructional evolution
Page 131 and 132:
Regression models indicating relati
Page 133 and 134:
of beliefs about integrating comput
Page 135 and 136:
Sinko, M., & Lehtinen, E. (1999). T
Page 137 and 138:
concept of social support. Lastly,
Page 139 and 140:
Procedure Content analysis procedur
Page 141 and 142:
and mice are out of order. I have t
Page 143 and 144:
feature of supportive online groups
Page 145 and 146:
Anderson, J., & Lee, A. (1995). Lit
Page 147 and 148:
Schwab, R. L., Jackson, S. E., & Sc
Page 149 and 150:
Investigating the problem An extens
Page 151 and 152:
meets the anywhere, anytime require
Page 153 and 154:
minimise housekeeping tasks and fre
Page 155 and 156:
3. Join Group Discussion 4. Attend
Page 157 and 158:
Figure 4. Learning Shell showing He
Page 159 and 160:
engineering the Learning Shell so i
Page 161 and 162:
Olfos, R., & Zulantay, H. (2007). R
Page 163 and 164:
portion of CourseInfo requires that
Page 165 and 166:
Table 2. Assignment evaluation resp
Page 167 and 168:
E-3c. Likert scale on usability: Th
Page 169 and 170:
organized in four groups, namely: T
Page 171 and 172:
The correlations were not high enou
Page 173 and 174:
Data illustrate some reliability an
Page 175 and 176:
nature, some specific core objectiv
Page 177 and 178:
Frederiksen, J.R., & Collins, A. (1
Page 179 and 180:
Bottino, R. M., & Robotti, E. (2007
Page 181 and 182:
The Text Editor allows the editing
Page 183 and 184:
Mathematical content and structure
Page 185 and 186:
Consolidation exercises Solution co
Page 187 and 188:
As to course components, the activi
Page 189 and 190:
handle more formal representations
Page 191 and 192:
Lagrange, J. B., Artigue, M., Labor
Page 193 and 194:
processed information was classifie
Page 195 and 196:
Method Participants The participant
Page 197 and 198:
Table 5. Learning outcomes of diffe
Page 199 and 200:
peers and benefited most from discu
Page 201 and 202:
Kayes, D.C. (2005). Internal validi
Page 203 and 204:
This paper considers the potential
Page 205 and 206:
The first assumption ensures that c
Page 207 and 208:
allowed to rise when external fundi
Page 209 and 210:
The second option, lowering the cos
Page 211 and 212:
Downes, S. (2003). Design and Reusa
Page 213 and 214:
Appendix A. Good-enough approaches
Page 215 and 216:
Rapid Prototyping and Design Based
Page 217 and 218:
Initial Design Because the field-ba
Page 219 and 220:
• reducing the number of required
Page 221 and 222: that they felt this hindrance; I fe
Page 223 and 224: goals” (Edelson, 2002, p. 114) wa
Page 225 and 226: more and more from the periphery of
Page 227 and 228: Edelson, M. (1988). The hermeneutic
Page 229 and 230: Wang, H.-Y., & Chen, S. M. (2007).
Page 231 and 232: If the universe of discourse U is a
Page 233 and 234: we can see that S( X ) − S( Y ) S
Page 235 and 236: Example 1: Let Ã and B ~ be two va
Page 237 and 238: columns shown in Table 2, where 1
Page 239 and 240: (3) Find the maximum value among th
Page 241 and 242: By applying Eq. (7), we can get the
Page 243 and 244: Q.2 carries 25 marks, Q.3 carries 2
Page 245 and 246: the proposed methods can evaluate s
Page 247 and 248: Gogoulou, A., Gouli, E., Grigoriado
Page 249 and 250: enabling learner (subject) to work
Page 251 and 252: • Self-, Peer- and Collaborative-
Page 253 and 254: (iii) Regulates the communication:
Page 255 and 256: Figure 3. A screen shot of the SCAL
Page 257 and 258: 2 nd study: Thirty-five students pa
Page 259 and 260: them characterized it as time and e
Page 261 and 262: Soller, A. (2001). Supporting Socia
Page 263 and 264: making reference to the others wher
Page 265 and 266: Solution 2.2: Deliberately select h
Page 267 and 268: just near a deadline, when it may b
Page 269 and 270: assessed on an individual basis. Wi
Page 271: - and even appreciated - by student
Page 275 and 276: Concept Mapping Concept mapping by
Page 277 and 278: Research Questions In order to dete
Page 279 and 280: with their teacher but rather than
Page 281 and 282: Tukey’s HSD post hoc test reveale
Page 283 and 284: collaboratively during study time?
Page 285 and 286: Jegede, O.J., Alaiyemola, F.F., & O
Page 287 and 288: esources. The use of synchronous te
Page 289 and 290: The use of digital communication mo
Page 291 and 292: contributed more information and en
Page 293 and 294: 3. Use the second screen for the le
Page 295 and 296: • Use drawing to develop writing
Page 297 and 298: student and teacher on the synchron
Page 299 and 300: Vogel, J. J., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-
Page 301 and 302: Cases The first set of ten case stu
Page 303 and 304: Kılıçkaya, F. (2007). Website re
show all

October 2007 Volume 10 Number 4 - Educational Technology ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?