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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Madeline was eight years of age and worked online in a synchronous cyber classroom with Megan Hastie during 2001-2002. A gifted student, Madeline brought a new dimension to cyber lessons. Her written responses on the interactive whiteboard in the synchronous cyber classroom provided irrefutable evidence of abstract thinking and higher levels of cognitive functioning. Madeline created ‘mind maps’ on the interactive whiteboard to record and plan her learning. This is a form of ‘metacognition’ in which Madeline demonstrated her ability to think about her thinking. She recorded her thoughts on the interactive whiteboard whilst simultaneously typing the text and discussing the content with her teacher. Figure 2 shows Madeline was planning a research project on birds that were nesting on her parents’ farm: Figure 2. High level cognitive function Figure 3. High level cognitive tasks From this point the trial sought to maximise the interaction between the student and teacher during synchronous cyber lessons. A less didactic approach was adopted. Strategies were trialled to support instruction that demanded demonstrated evidence of visual, auditory and kinaesthetic processing by the student during the lesson. We expected the integration of these three sensory functions to result in higher levels of thinking and learning. This posed instructional design challenges. During 2002-<strong>2007</strong> the design of the whiteboard screens evolved such that the student 285
contributed more information and engaged in ‘chat’, both verbal and written, relating to the activity. By contrast, the Figure 3 below shows how instructional design enabled the student to interact in a more spontaneous way. The student’s responses were visual, auditory and kinaesthetic. This demanded a higher level of thinking and contributed to cognitive gain. We found a direct correlation between the instructional design features illustrated in Figure 3 and higher levels of interactivity by the student. The student provided more information and demonstrated greater levels of understanding of the concepts. We attribute the teacher’s ability to adopt a less didactic and teacher-directed approach to the design of synchronous cyber lessons to the teacher gaining confidence with the technology of the synchronous cyber classroom. This included greater competence in the establishment of the link with the student, the use of the interactive whiteboard and its tools, and the design of synchronous cyber lessons. Growing confidence with the technology allowed the focus to shift to the pedagogy. This resulted in higher levels of interaction and collaboration between the student and teacher during the lesson. It meant the teacher and student shared the learning space on the interactive whiteboard. The whiteboard became a colourful, creative and dynamic playground for learning. Input from the student was maximised and resulted in less teacher preparation time. The teaching and learning became ‘real’. The evolution of the lesson format and its associated instructional design features was guided by the students themselves. We decided to keep the instructional design for the synchronous lessons simple and ‘minimalist’. The focus was on clarity of communication between the student and teacher and was deemed to be the most suitable approach for working with younger students. It provided the students with the freedom to use concrete technological tools, especially the writing tools on the interactive whiteboard, to encode abstract thought. An interesting dichotomy evolved between simplicity in the instructional design and complexity in the cognitive functioning of students. In effect, the teacher and students collaborated in the learning process and the design of lessons. This approach had two major advantages: it was a good way to engage online students, and it was also a good strategy to encourage teachers to take a graduated approach to the adoption of online synchronous teaching. The simplicity of the approach with its ‘minimalist’ design features was applied to the lesson format and also to each individual screen of the synchronous interactive whiteboard. The increased interaction by the student in the form of visual, auditory and kinaesthetic responses during synchronous cyber lessons was equated with higher cognitive function. The lesson format usually consisted of three or four screens prepared by the teacher prior to the lesson. Extra screens were added to the lesson as required. Some screens contained a simple one-sentence instruction or idea for the student to read. The remaining space on the screen was purposely left empty and was used for drawing and writing by the student and teacher. Other screens were completely empty and were added as the lesson progressed to provide extra writing space for the student. As a result, we developed a ten point guideline for ‘best practice’ in instructional design to maximise learning outcomes in the students in our trial: 1. We kept the design simple (minimalist) when we planned the format of the synchronous lesson and for each screen of the interactive whiteboard. 2. We used the first screen of the synchronous whiteboard, along with the webcam (where available) to start the lesson and welcome the student. 3. We used the second screen for the lesson plan. 4. We provided teacher directed activities during the lesson. 5. We used the third and subsequent screens as a working space for activities based on the lesson plan. 6. We gave greater prominence to freehand drawing and keyboard writing on the interactive whiteboard. 7. We balanced interactivity and spontaneity with teacher ‘wait time’. 8. We used the final screen to plan the next lesson. 9. We also used the final screen to praise the student, end the lesson and say farewell. <strong>10</strong>. We used email as an adjunct to synchronous cyber lessons. 286
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 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: The use of digital communication mo
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?