october 2012 - TOJET the Turkish online journal of educational ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2012, volume 11 Issue 4 participants have Internet access at reside location. Another finding concerning demographic data, almost all of the participants have cell phone, just half of the participants have data plan for their cell phone. Concerning t-test results by gender, internet access ownership and computer usage in high school settings, freshmen believe concerning ICT usage in K-12 and university settings did not show big differences. For each three independent variables, freshmen believe differ in few ICT tools. Depending on findings; • Colleges and faculty can use indifferences among freshmen believe. Thus colleges can reduce awareness of pre-service teachers. • Pre-service believes concerning ICT usage in both settings relatively high and if pre-service teachers are encouraged concerning ICT usage and educational usage of ICT. Pre-service teachers can acquire more knowledge and skills concerning ICT. Recommendations for the future researcher; • Research can be design to research differences between pre-service teachers technological literacy level and believe concerning ICT usage in K-12 and university settings • Research can be design to research differences between pre-service teachers millennial learners characteristics and believe concerning ICT usage in K-12 and university settings • Research can be design to research differences between pre-service teachers various (computer, media, etc.) literacies level and believe concerning ICT usage in K-12 and university settings REFERENCES Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 28(1), 7–12. Huanga, K., Lubinb, I. A. & Gec, X. (2011). Situated learning in an educational technology course for preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 1200 – 1212 Imhof, M., Vollmeyer, R. & Beierlein, C. (2007). Computer use and the gender gap: The issue of access, use, motivation, and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2823–2837. Keser, H. & Özcan, D. (2011). Current trends in educational technologies studies. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3989–3998 King, K. P. (2002). Educational technology professional development as transformative learning opportunities. Computers & Education, 39, 283–297. Li, N. & Kirkup, G. (2007). Gender and cultural differences in Internet use: A study of China and the UK. Computers & Education, 48, 301–317. Littlejohn, A, Margaryan, A & Vojt,G. (2010). Exploring Students’ use of ICT and Expectations of Learning Methods. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 8(1),13 – 20 Meelissen, M.R.M. & Drent, M. (2008). Gender differences in computer attitudes: Does the school matter?. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 969–985. Meng, Q. & Li, M. (2002). New Economy and ICT development in China. Information Economics and Policy, 14, 275–295 Mills, S. (2006).When humans need humans: The lack of use of computer-based ICT in distance pastoral care. Interacting with Computers, 18, 556–567 Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1 – 6. Sang, G., Valcke, M., Braak, J. & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers & Education, 54, 103–112. Vekiri, I. & Chronaki, A. (2008). Gender issues in technology use: Perceived social support, computer selfefficacy and value beliefs, and computer use beyond school. Computers & Education, 51, 1392–1404. Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 431
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2012, volume 11 Issue 4 HOW LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS CAN STIMULATE STUDENT IMAGINATION Professor Dr. Chaoyun Liang Department of Information Communication, Yuan Ze University, Taiwan iccylian@saturn.yzu.edu.tw Assistant Professor Dr. Yuling Hsu School of General Education, Yuan Ze University, Taiwan ulhsu@saturn.yzu.edu.tw Assistant Professor Dr. Yinghsiu Huang Department of Industrial Design, Tung-Hai University, Taiwan yinghsiu@thu.edu.tw Assistant Professor Dr. Sheng-Chih Chen Master’s Program of Digital Content and Technologies, College of Communication, National ChengChi University, Taiwan scchen222@gmail.com ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to investigate an array of environmental factors that can stimulate imagination and explore how these factors manifest in different design phases. The participants of this study were students in the field of educational technology from four universities across Taiwan. The instructional design process was divided into three major phases: analysis, design/development, and implementation/evaluation. Influences in the learning environment were deconstructed into four factors: physical component, organizational measure, social climate, and human aggregate. The results of this study indicated that environmental factors have varying effects during the three phases of instructional design. The social climate was claimed to have the greatest effect on stimulating imagination, followed by organizational measure, human aggregate factor, and lastly physical component. These effects were seen in the development process, especially in phase two and with a lesser effect in phase three. Keywords: educational technologist, imagination stimulation, instructional designer, learning environment INTRODUCTION Given the recent infusion of technology in almost every aspect of human lives, educational technologists are struggling with integrating technology into a variety of educational settings. Furthermore, highly advanced ICT infrastructure and the government’s implementation of e-learning policies have accelerated the nationwide development of e-learning and forced educators to face a large number of tasks and related problems. One major problem that has emerged is the fast growth of technological applications without the necessary transformation of conventional pedagogical practices, or the assistance to learners in gaining the skills, knowledge, and attitudes for having a better quality of life. AECT (2004) defined the field of educational technology as “the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources.” The definition suggests that educators should take technological resources and learning activities into account to extend the curriculum for students. Students thus could use technology as a system to make content more engaging and meaningful. However, design is iterative and involves ill-structured rather than well-formed problems (Ertmer et al., 2008; Jonassen, 2008). Therefore, Roschelle & Jackiw (2000) contended that designing educational experiences is an imaginative art. Instructional designers construct activities and anticipate conversations and actions that will bring learners’ inquiry to fulfillment, enabling their growth toward desirable skills and understandings. Fabricating such meaningful experiences not only requires a significant amount of expertise, but also creativity and imagination. It involves imagining how learners learn; how they respond to a task; where, with whom, and how they work; using which resources under which circumstances; and over what timescale (Goodyear & Retalis, 2010). Moreover, designers need to have imagination to forecast emerging technologies and their potential applications. However, until now, few studies have clearly discussed imagination in the field of educational technology, let alone developed an evaluation tool for assessing imagination stimulation. Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 432
Page 2 and 3:
THE TURKISH ONLINE JOURNAL OF EDUCA
Page 4 and 5:
Dear Colleagues, TOJET: The Turkish
Page 6 and 7:
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal o
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Annotation retrieval TOJET: The Tur
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Stage 2 Process Stage 3 Output Stag
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Learning effectiveness TOJET: The T
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Appendix A: Questionnaire TOJET: Th
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 TOJET: The Turk
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Computer Use Transformational Leade
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Diverger TOJET: The Turkish Online
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
clarify their misconceptions. TOJET
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
*p < .05 TOJET: The Turkish Online
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
section to the user. TOJET: The Tur
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
Page 352 and 353:
Page 354 and 355:
Page 356 and 357:
Page 358 and 359:
Page 360 and 361:
Page 362 and 363:
Page 364 and 365:
Page 366 and 367:
Page 368 and 369:
Page 370 and 371:
Statement Analysis TOJET: The Turki
Page 372 and 373:
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376 and 377:
Page 378 and 379:
Page 380 and 381:
Page 382 and 383:
Page 384 and 385:
Page 386 and 387:
Page 388 and 389:
Appendices TOJET: The Turkish Onlin
Page 390 and 391:
Page 392 and 393: TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal o
Page 412 and 413: TOJEET: The Turkish Online Journal
Page 414 and 415: TOJEET: The Turkish Online Journal
Page 426 and 427: eactions TOJET: The Turkish Online
Page 470: TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal o
show all

october 2012 - TOJET the Turkish online journal of educational ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?