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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Brown, D.S. (2003). High School biology: A group approach to concept mapping. The American Biology Teacher, 65 (3), 192-197. Chang, K.E., Sung, Y.T., & Chen, I.D. (2001). Learning through computer-based concept mapping with scaffolding aid. The Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 21-33. Chiu, C.H., Wu, W.S., & Huang, C.C. (2000). Collaborative concept mapping processes mediated by computer. Institute of Computer and Information Education, National Taiwan Teachers College, 33 (2), 95-100. Cifuentes, L., & Hsieh, Y. C. (2003a). Visualization for construction of meaning during study time: A Quantitative Analysis. International Journal of Instructional, Media, 30 (3), 263-273. Cifuentes, L., & Hsieh, Y. C. (2003b). Visualization for construction of meaning during study time: A Qualitative Analysis. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30 (4), 407-417. Cifuentes, L., & Hsieh, Y. C. (2004). Visualization for middle school student’ engagement in science learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23 (2), 109-137. Daley, B. J. (2002). Facilitating learning with adult students through concept mapping. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 50 (1), 21-31. Duffy, T.M., Lowyck, J., & Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Designing environment for constructive learning, New York: Springer. Earnshaw, R.A., & Wiseman, N. (1992). An introductory guide to scientific visualization, New York: Springer. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Grasel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12, 213-232. Fischer, K.M. (1990). Semantic-networking: The new kid on the block. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 1002-1018. Gaines, B.R., & Shaw, M.L.G. (1995). Concept maps as hypermedia components. International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, 43 (3), 323–361. Gobert, J.D., & Clement, J.J. (1999). Effect of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 (1), 39-53. Horton, P.B., MacConney, A.A., Gallo, M., Woods, A. L., Senn, G.J., & Hamelin, D. (1993). An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional tool. Science Education, 77, 95-111. Hsieh, Y. C. & Cifuentes, L. (2003). A cross-cultural study of the effect of student-generated visualization on middle school students' science concept learning in Texas and Taiwan. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51 (3), 90-95. Hsieh, Y.C., & Cifuentes, L. (2006). Student-generated visualization as a study strategy for science concept learning. Educational Technology and Society, 9 (3), 137-148. Hyerle, D. (2000). A field guide to using visual tools, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 279
Jegede, O.J., Alaiyemola, F.F., & Okebukola, P.A.O. (1990). The effect of concept mapping on students' anxiety and achievement in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 951-960. Jonassen, D. (1994). Thinking technology. Educational Technology, 34 (4), 34-37. Jonassen, D.H. (2000). Computer as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H.P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43 (2), 24-32. Lumpe, A. T., & Staver, J.R. (1995). Peer collaboration and concept development: Learning about photosynthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32 (1), 71-98. Mayer, R. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustration in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 240-246. Mayer, R., & Gallini, J. (1990). When is an illustration worth then thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715-726. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Novak, J. D. (1990). A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (10), 937-949. Novak, J.D. (1998). Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Novak, J.D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Padilla, M. J., Miaoulis, I., & Cyr, M. (2002). Prentice Hall science explorer, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Plotnick, E. (1997). Concept mapping: A graphical system for understanding the relationship between concepts, retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.ericdigests.org/1998-1/concept.htm. Quinn, H. J., Mintzes, J. J., & Laws, R. A. (2003). Successive concept mapping. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33 (3), 12-16. Rice, D. C., Ryan, J. M., & Samson, S. M. (1998). Using concept maps to assess student learning in the science classroom: Must different methods compete? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35 (10), 1103-1127. Roth, W.M. (1994). Students’ views of collaborative concept mapping: An emancipatory research project. Science Education, 78 (1), 1-34. Royer, R., & Royer, J. (2004). Comparing hand drawn and computer generated concept mapping. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23 (1), 67-81. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 569-600. 280
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 272: - and even appreciated - by student
Page 273 and 274: Panitz, T., & Panitz, P. (1998). En
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: collaboratively during study time?
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?