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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ecall interviews (Ericsson & Simon, 1980). The data-driven qualitative content analysis revealed that pictures as self-generated knowledge representations were used for carrying individuals’ abstract meanings. Furthermore, students’ activity in processing each others ideas further, as well as a level of cognitively challenging activities, indicates that pictorial knowledge representations and technology tools scaffolded co-regulation of collaborative knowledge construction. However, students were of the opinion that pictorial knowledge representations are challenging and thorough negotiation is needed for grounding pictures on the content discussions. Mobile “Edufeeds” for creating shared understanding among virtual learning communities The aim of this study was to explore how mobile technologies and social software (weblogs, wikis, RSS-aggregators and file-sharing services) can be used for scaffolding collaborative learning; sharing understanding and building virtual communities (See Näykki & Järvelä, <strong>2007</strong>). The main assumption was that students’ interactions will be enriched when possibilities of social software are integrated in the learning situations, and thus, building virtual communities will be more fluent than in more traditional virtual learning environments. The participants of this study (N = 22, 5 male and 17 female) worked in groups of 4-5 students for a period of three months. Group work was structured to different phases, which were facilitated with social software (weblog, wikis and RSS-aggregators) as well as mobile phones and lap top computers (See Table 3). Visualizing ideas with pictorial knowledge representations was a tool for students to plan and monitor their individual level and group level learning processes. Description of activities Lecture (6 sessions) Face to face group working sessions (6 sessions) Individual working sessions (6 sessions) Group’s meaning making sessions (2 sessions) Virtual group working sessions (2 sessions) Table 3. Pedagogical structure Pedagogical idea Outcome Technological tool Theoretical grounding Theoretical concepts - Groups’ grounding Shared concepts - Constructing, monitoring Elaborating Constructing, monitoring Constructing knowledge representations Negotiating knowledge representations Using knowledge representations Mobile phone, Weblog, RSS-aggregator Weblog Wiki Weblog, Wiki RSS-aggregator The students were introduced to the content of the course with six lectures and after the each lecture the students reflected on the content of the lectures in groups. The given task for each group was to first reflect on the content and to name five important themes in the lecture. After that the students were asked to choose one of the themes and to formulate their group’s working problem based on the theme with which they continued to work by finding real-life examples to represent their shared discussions. In practise, the group work was followed with a one-week phase of independent on-line work, where students were asked to use mobile phones to take pictures and/or video clips to represent their ideas of the learning content. While taking the pictures/videos students were also asked to answer the following questions: what is the name of this picture, what does this picture represent, and how is it related to the learning content, by typing a short description for the picture. The pictures and descriptions of the pictures were sent automatically to the each student’s own weblog. This same task continued after each lecture. Weblogs were used as personal journals, where students reflected their ideas further by writing journal entries around the respective pictures/videos. Furthermore, students were asked to follow each others’ contributions to their personal weblogs by using RSS-aggregators in their mobile phones. In the middle of the course, students had a “meaning-making session” where they reviewed all the group members’ weblogs to see the pictorial material everyone had collected. The students were asked to introduce the pictures by explaining what they represent and to negotiate and choose among 75
the pictorial knowledge representations those pictures that could represent the group’s shared understanding. This session was repeated twice, in the middle of the course and at the end of the course, and the session was followed by the virtual group working phase, where students continued to share their ideas with the chosen pictorial knowledge representations. The data were collected by using video-observation, questionnaire, stimulated recall interviews. In addition log files of the students’ activities, and students’ and groups’ products in weblogs and wikis were used as a data. The results showed that construction and sharing of knowledge representations scaffold students’ shared regulation of collaborative learning by activating their cognitive processes; explaining and elaborating their own understanding. Conclusions In this paper three different studies were presented in order to illustrate how collaborative learning can be structured and regulated in higher education, with wireless networks and mobile tools. The pedagogical ideas derive from collaborative learning, including the socially shared origin of cognition as well as self-regulated learning theory. Each study shows that, with a novel use of technology, certain aspects of collaboration can be supported. The Mobile Lecture Interaction Tool (M.L.I) is an example of how individual self-regulation can be supported in university lectures. The results show that students’ cognitive activities, such as metacognition and reflection, were stimulated by focusing on questions about the content of the lecture. This kind of learning tool can be used for compensating weak study skills in different domains (Azevedo, Guthrie & Seibert, 2004) and especially in university lectures. Even though, the M.L.I. tool was credited as beneficial for lecture interaction, some students viewed that there were too many things to concentrate on at the same time. Students pointed out that listening to the lecturer, writing lecture notes and using the M.L.I. tool at the same time, were too much for them to handle. Therefore, aspects related to cognitive load (Kirschner, 2002) need to be recognized. To lower the cognitive load the M.L.I. tool could be developed further so that students and teacher could use questions and comments also after the lecture. Another possibility is structuring or scripting the lecture situation so that there are specific times for questions and comments, and therefore students would not feel that they are missing some important things while they are using the M.L.I. tool. The results of the Mobile Mind Map tool study imply that the tool can be used for enhancing co-regulation in terms of sharing and externalizing visual knowledge representations and developing them in interpersonal interactions. The students should be encouraged, when appropriate, to create, modify or co-design the learning environments in which they are working. Construction of external representations can be a successful learning strategy that not only helps students by externalizing and sharing their thoughts, but also provides a source of information for teachers about students’ current task understanding (Butler & Cartier, 2004). Students’ co-regulated learning can be supported by scaffolding externalization of their own thinking and by seeing what others are thinking and, when possible, to then continue their own and others’ flow of thinking. However, externalizing knowledge representations is cognitively challenging. In this study pictures were used as external knowledge representations and the study indicates that pictures can carry individuals’ co-created meanings in them but since those meanings are personal, ambiguous negotiation processes are highly valuable. The Edufeed study indicates that web 2.0 technologies can be designed to scaffold shared regulation processes within the groups. In the study the students constructed a variety of pictorial knowledge representations and shared their meaning collaboratively. However, the students thought that it was challenging to represent their own ideas with pictures and even more challenging to explain the representation to others. Nevertheless, the students who explained their pictures to others viewed that the elaboration of pictures was beneficial for their learning. The results showed that construction and sharing of knowledge representations activated students' self-regulated learning; explaining and elaborating their own understanding. Other studies from collaborative learning contexts have highlighted that in collaboration, individuals should share their understanding in discussion to converge their knowledge representations, which might lead to new shared knowledge representations (e.g. Dillenbourg & Traum, 2006; Fisher & Mandl, 2005; Rochelle, 1992). It is concluded that even though self-generated pictorial knowledge representations are often personal and ambiguous they may give an impetus for sharing and explaining individual knowledge representations to the socially shared level. 76
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: Mobile mind map tool for stimulatin
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 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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?