Download
1 / 12
120 likes | 274 Views
IDT691FINAL PAPER HANSUK UM. Learning Effects of Interactive Technologies: Two Evidences. 1. Introduction. 2. Pedagogical Approaches to Interactive Technologies. Web 2.0: social learning and use of social software. 2. Pedagogical Approaches to Interactive Technologies.
E N D
IDT691FINAL PAPER HANSUK UM Learning Effects of Interactive Technologies: Two Evidences
2. Pedagogical Approaches to Interactive Technologies • Web 2.0: social learning and use of social software
3. First Evidence by Hypermedia Learning • Scaffolding effects by Hypermedia WhatPrior knowledge high process scaffolding low content & process scaffolding When Timing monitoring How Metacognitive monitoring Whom Delivery system
3. First Evidence by Hypermedia Learning • Metacognitive skills: Self-regulated learner Utilize the “right tool for the job” Modify learning strategies and skills based on their awareness of effectiveness
4. Second Evidence by online learning • LMS in Higher education Hintermayer found e-learning has an influence on individual development of various study skills and generic competencies Strong mentorship is required for students to achieve autonomy
4. Second Evidence by online learning • Knowledge construction by Social network A case of broadcasting systems Bulletin Board Systems Blog Twitter Face Book Knowledge-building communities
5. Conclusion • Interactive technology foster learning • Scaffolding by hypermedia learning and Knowledge construction by LMS • Promoted by strong mentorship
6. Discussion • Importance of the topic Show and support the interactive relationship between learners and technologies • Argument Learner-content interaction is accelerated by learner-learner, or learner-instructor • Personal opinions Furthermore,Interactive technology also promotes interactivity one another among all three simultaneously: L-L, L-C, and L-I
6. Discussion: Personal opinions learner
7. References • Anglin, G.J. (1992). Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future (3rd Edition / 2nd Edition). Colorado: Libraries Unlimited. • Anderson, T, &Elloumi, F. (2004) . Theory and practice of online Learning: Athabasca University • Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209. • Azevedo, R., & Jacobson, M. J. (2008). Advances in scaffolding learning with hypertext and hypermedia: A summary and critical analysis. Education Tech Research Dev, 56, 93-100. • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., & Donovan, S. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. • Budka, P., & Schallert, C. (2009). Transforming learning infrastures in social sciences through flexible and interactive technology-enhanced learning. Learn Inq, 25 (3), 131-142. • Jacobson, M. J. (2008). A design framework for educational hypermedia systems: Theory, research, and learning emerging scientific conceptual perspectives. Education Tech Research Dev, 56, 5-28. • Scheiter, K.,Gerjet, P., vollmann, B., & Catrambone, R. (2009). The impact of learner characteristics on information utilization strategies, cognitive load experienced, and performance in hypermedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 19, 387-401. • Shapiro, A. M. (2008). Hypermedia design s learner scaffolding. Education Tech Research Dev, 56, 29-44. • Sherin, B., Reiser, B. J., & Edelson, D. (2004). Scaffolding Aanalysis: Extending the Scaffolding metaphor to learning artifacts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 387-421. • Verhoeven, L., Schnotz, W., & Paas, F. (2009) cognitive load in interactive knowledge construction. Learning and Instruction, 19, 369-375. • Warschauer, M. (2007). The paradixical future of digital learning. Learn Inq, 10 (3), 41-49.
