ED-MEDIA 1999 Proceedings Book - Association for the ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

of, for example “Do it yourself. Have you looked it up in books or dictionaries” implies that the tutor has monitored the learner’s cognitive actions through his question and criticized the learner’s insufficient cognitive action. Moreover the suggestions, for example “you should make things you are uncertain of clearer”, shows how the learner should regulate his cognitive actions. Consequently, tutors’ responses are their metacognitive experiences to which learners’ cognitive actions provided input or which can exert influence on learners’ cognitive actions. As learners develop a conscious cognition of the tutors’ responses, these responses can be exhibited in the learners’ externalized metacognitive experiences. Communication and the development of metacognition We now consider how the communication between learners and tutors develops learners’ metacognitive experiences. Although learners asked questions which depended on tutors to supplement their cognitive actions, the tutors didn’t comply. This shows that the meaning which learners gave their questions is different from the meaning tutors gave. Thus learners noticed the difference in meaning which tutors gave and they reinterpreted discourse events; i.e. their questionings (Fox 1987). This reinterpretation would cause either reflective thinking or monitoring. We must make the distinction clear between reflective thinking and monitoring before describing the process of developing learners’ metacognitive experiences. We can distinguish reflective thinking from monitoring as “criterion-referenced”. Reflective thinking is to think backward carefully about one’s cognitive actions in the past. However monitoring is to evaluate one’s cognitive actions with one’s criterion-reference. Thus monitoring is a meta-level action, but reflective thinking is not. We believe that criterion-referencing is the discerning factor by which reflective thinking turns into monitoring. To developing monitoring abilities means the development of a new criterion-reference. If a tutor’s response has impacted a learner’s reflective thinking through the conscious cognition of the tutor’s criterion-referencing, the learner’s reflective thinking could be the cause of his monitoring. If so, he would monitor using the tutor’s criterion. During this process of monitoring utilizing the tutor’s criterion, a learner gradually internalizes it as his own criterion. Then the student is able to do monitoring by himself. This process is the identical to Vygotsky’s theory (Vygotsky, 1978). “Every function in the child’s development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later on the individual level; first, between people (inter-psychological) and inside the child (intra-psychological)”. Conclusion We have proposed two elements in this paper. The first is that the learners’ questions represent their immediate antecedent cognitive actions and the tutors’ responses represent their externalized metacognitive activities to which learners’ cognitive actions provided input or which can exert influence on learners’ cognitive actions. The second is how the communication between learners and tutors develops learners’ monitoring. If learners notice the difference in meaning engendered in the tutor's response to their questioning, and they engage in conscious cognition of the tutors’ externalized metacognitive experiences, the learner’s reflective thinking elicited by the tutor’s responses produces monitoring by the learner utilizing the tutor’s criterion. These two points are based on only two kinds of questions and answers. Although there are many additional kinds of questions, we are quite certain that most of the learners who do not develop their monitoring abilities ask these two types of questions. References Artzt, A. F. and Amour-Thomas, E. (1992). Development of a Cognitive-Metacognitive Framework for Protocol Analysis of Mathematical Problem Solving in Small Groups, Cognition and Instruction, 9(2), 137-175. Flavell, J. H. (1981). Cognitive Monitoring. In: W. P. Dickson (Ed.), Children’s Oral Communication Skills, 35-60. Fox, B. A. (1987). Interactional Reconstruction in real-time language Processing. Cognitive Science 11, 365-387. Kayashima, M. (1998). Evaluating Collaborative Learning using BBS - focusing on questions of learners. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA&ED-TELECOM, 1998, Association for Advancement of Computing in Education,
Charlottesville, VA., 691-696. Mulyran, C. M. (1992). Student passivity during cooperative small group in mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 10, 151-177. Nelson, T. O. and Narens, L. (1994). Why Investigate Metacognition In: J. Metcalfe and A. P. Shimamura (Eds.) Metacognition (pp. 1-25) MIT Press. Roschelle, J. & Teasley, S. D. (1994) The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving In: C.O’Malley (ed.) Computer Supported Collaborative Learning,(pp. 69-97) NATO ASI series Vol. F-128, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Vygotsky, L. A. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychology Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Page 1 and 2:
Designing an Interactive Learning E
Page 3 and 4:
develop an educationally meaningful
Page 5 and 6:
2. Functionality of the BSCW System
Page 7 and 8:
3. First empirical findings During
Page 9 and 10:
of the users as participating actor
Page 11 and 12:
2. Other Characteristics of the Pro
Page 13 and 14:
education resources are being produ
Page 15 and 16:
y using a drop-down menu: Informati
Page 17 and 18:
Results Computing ability and expos
Page 19 and 20:
instructional designs while introdu
Page 21 and 22:
Global Educational Multimedia Serve
Page 23 and 24:
Assured Access/Mobile Computing Ini
Page 25 and 26:
The University has set up a secure
Page 27 and 28:
* Changes in educational paradigms
Page 29 and 30:
Using Computer Imagery and Visualis
Page 31 and 32:
Publishing an imej Journal for Comp
Page 33 and 34:
In summary, we offer the following
Page 35 and 36:
Discussion Forums and Peer Review F
Page 37 and 38:
Languages and Statistics: Solutions
Page 39 and 40:
Kelly and Leckbee (1998) indicate,
Page 41 and 42:
A Wide Array of Uses: Inquiry and I
Page 43 and 44:
Effects of Question-Based Learning
Page 45 and 46:
The EFFECTS of TRAINGING METHOD on
Page 47 and 48:
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A 10-day ex
Page 49 and 50: prototype for futuristic learning e
Page 51 and 52: Designing a Course Web-Site to Supp
Page 53 and 54: International Collaborative Learnin
Page 55 and 56: Facilitation frameworks Bostrom et
Page 57 and 58: From table 2 it can be seen that te
Page 59 and 60: Learning in Safety and Comfort: Tow
Page 61 and 62: Networking The Nation Noel Craske S
Page 63 and 64: Norfolk Stations. Schools of Distan
Page 65 and 66: one-on-one with Teaching Assistants
Page 67 and 68: Java. One of them is already an exp
Page 69 and 70: • Personal study room management
Page 71 and 72: As has already been discussed in th
Page 73 and 74: On-line Support of On-Campus Educat
Page 75 and 76: In-service Teachers Teaching Pre-se
Page 77 and 78: How the Construction & Analysis of
Page 79 and 80: Yet, still we ask ourselves: How do
Page 81 and 82: us, we need to be ever-conscious of
Page 83 and 84: A Reporting Simulation Using Toolbo
Page 85 and 86: environment — it is impossible to
Page 87 and 88: Actually, when a particular author
Page 89 and 90: Any instance of this type is an HC
Page 91 and 92: Figure 5: Saving an Educational App
Page 93 and 94: To address this problem Webfuse dra
Page 95 and 96: Cognitive tools can act as structur
Page 97 and 98: In this study, we propose the follo
Page 99: more information about it, for exam
Page 103 and 104: ownership is retained by the instit
Page 105 and 106: priority, it is in the interests of
Page 107 and 108: limitations of the prevailing compl
Page 109 and 110: exchange information with other cla
Page 111 and 112: whether compiled or interpreted. So
Page 113 and 114: A web site system for instructors t
Page 115 and 116: is to monitor the status of learner
Page 117 and 118: the capability grant G13 as Not Set
Page 119 and 120: Slavin R.(1994), Small group method
Page 121 and 122: tutor. Support offered in the form
Page 123 and 124: Apart from utilising the functional
Page 125 and 126: Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (Ed.). (1984
Page 127 and 128: Java can significantly increase the
Page 129 and 130: The modules are designed for a vari
Page 131 and 132: adapted tests to assess the student
Page 133 and 134: Architecture of HEZINET The system
Page 135 and 136: Berners-Lee, T. & R. Cailliau, (198
Page 137 and 138: The ParlEuNet system will provide a
Page 139 and 140: 3. Students use a dedicated HTML co
Page 141 and 142: The prototype under development is
Page 143 and 144: make an hypermedia educational envi
Page 145 and 146: accreditation or standing in countr
Page 147 and 148: A government designates a certain a
Page 149 and 150: will be involved - either in partne
Page 151 and 152:
Streaming 7000 films... Uwe Sander
Page 153 and 154:
and how to innovate will be paramou
Page 155 and 156:
Toward a framework for instruction
Page 157 and 158:
A knowledge integration approach to
Page 159 and 160:
In 1978, the University formalized
Page 161 and 162:
comparisons to conventional instruc
Page 163 and 164:
Multimedia Cases in Teacher Educati
Page 165 and 166:
Merseth, K.K. (1996). Cases and cas
Page 167 and 168:
Using Multimedia to support mentors
Page 169 and 170:
Conclusion The project is still und
Page 171 and 172:
An Investigation into Faculty Attit
Page 173 and 174:
Web-Based Testing in Distance Educa
Page 175 and 176:
Selecting Internet Technologies to
Page 177 and 178:
Designing and Implementing Web-Base
show all

ED-MEDIA 1999 Proceedings Book - Association for the ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?