Computer-Based Instruction: Enhancing Learning Outcomes and Adaptation to Learner Differences

Computer-Based Instruction: Enhancing Learning Outcomes and Adaptation to Learner Differences

1. This topic is concerned with (1)computer assisted instruction; (2)computer management of instruction; (3)outcomes achieved; (4)adaptation of instruction to learner capabilities; (5)developing and optimizing strategies of instruction; (6)broader cognitive outcomes of experience with computers; (7)computers and the organization of learning in classrooms; and (8)processes in small group learning with computers.

   • (7)computers and the organization of learning in classrooms
     • Mercer, N., & Fisher, E. (1992) How do teachers help children to learn? An analysis of teachers’ interventions in computer-based activities. Learning and Instruction, 2, 339-238.
     • Vosnadiou, S., De Corte, E., Glaser, R., & Mandl (1996) (Eds) International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   • (1)computer assisted instruction
     • Schofield, J.W., Eurich-Fulcer, R., & Britt, C.L. (1994) Teachers, computer tutors and teaching: The artificially intelligent tutor as an agent for classroom change. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 579-607.
     • Anand, P.G. and Ross, S.M. (1987) Using computer-assisted instruction to personalize arithmetic materials for elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 72-78.
     • Kumpulainen, K. (1996) The nature of peer interaction in the social context created by the use of word processors. Learning and Instruction, 6, 243-262.
     • Jacobson, M. J., & Reimann, P. (2009). Designs for learning environments of the future: International learning sciences theory and research perspectives. New York: Springer.
     • Chariker, J. H., Haaz, F., & Pani, J. R. (2011). Computer-based learning of neuroanatomy: A longitudinal study of learning, transfer and retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 19-31.
     • Tamin, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81, 4-28.
     • Steenbergen-Hu, S., Cooper, H. (2013. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on k-12 students’ mathematical learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 988-1009.
   • (2)computer management of instruction
   • (3)outcomes achieved
     • Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994) The CSILE Project: Trying to bring the classroom into World 3, Chap. 8 (pp. 201-228) In K. McGilly (Ed) Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory (MIT: Bradford Books).
     • Lajoie, S.P. (1993) Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning, Chap. 9 (pp. 261-288) In S.P. Lajoie & S.J. Derry (Eds) Computers as cognitive tools (Erlbaum) also see Chap. 12 (Chipman) and Chap. 13 (Lesgold).
     • Koschmann, T. (1996) (Ed) CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
     • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1997) The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
     • Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 409-425). In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   • (4)adaptation of instruction to learner capabilities
     • Tsai, M.-J. (2009). The model of strategic elearning: Understanding and evaluating student elearning from metacognitive perspectives. Educational Technology and Society, 12, 34-48.
   • (5)developing and optimizing strategies of instruction
     • Salomon, G. (1998). Novel constructivist learning environments and novel technologies: Some issues to be concerned with. Learning and Instruction, 8(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00007-3
     • Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (1996) Learning in Wonderland: What do computers really offer education? In S. Kerr (Ed) Technology and the future of schooling, 95th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part 11).
     • SALOMON, G., PERKINS, D. N., & GLOBERSON, T. (1991). Partners in Cognition: Extending Human Intelligence with Intelligent Technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X020003002
     • Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Guterman, E. (1989) The computer as a zone of proximal development: Internalising reading-related metacognitions from a reading partner. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 620-627.
     • Collins, A. (1991) Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology, pp. 121-139 In L. Idol & B.F. Jones (Eds) Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform (NCREL/Erlbaum).
     • Clements, D.H. (1991) Enhancement of creativity in computer environments. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 173-187.
     • De Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W.R. (1998) Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179-201.
     • Lipponen, L. (2001). Computer-supported learning: From promises to reality. Turku: Turun Yliopisto.
     • Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003) Patterns of participation and discourse in elementary students’ computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 13, 487-509.
     • Naidu, S. (Ed.). (2003).Learning & teaching with technology : principles and practices. London: Kogan Page.
     • Hoppe, H. U., Ogata, H., & Soller, A. (Eds.). (2007). The role of technology in CSCL: Studies in technology enhanced collaborative learning. New York: Springer.
     • Educational Psychology Review (2010), 22 1. Special issue on computer supported instructional communication.
     • Steinkuehler, C., & Squire, K. (2014). Videogames and learning. In In R. K. Sawyer (Ed). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. (2nd Ed). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   • (6)broader cognitive outcomes of experience with computers
     • Zellermayer, M., Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Givon, H. (1991) Enhancing related metacognitions through a computerized Writing-Partner. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 373-391.
     • Nastasi, B.K., Clements, D., & Battista, M. (1990) Social-cognitive interactions, motivation and cognitive growth in Logo programming and CAI problem-solving environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 150-158.
     • Mevarech, Z.R., & Kramarski, B. (1993) Vygotsky and Papert: social-cognitive interactions within LOGO environments. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 96-109.
     • Nastasi, B., & Clements, D.H. (1992) Social-cognitive behaviours and higher-order thinking in educational computer environments. Learning and Instruction, 2, 215-238.
     • Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R.B. (1991) Animations need narrations: an experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484-490.
     • Educational Psychology Review (2007). 19, 3. Special issue on interactive learning environments.
     • Wouters, P. J. M., Paas, F., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2008). How to optimise learning from animated models: A review of guidelines based on cognitive load. Review of Educational Research, 78, 645-675.
   • (8)processes in small group learning with computers
     • Webb, N.M. (1987) Peer interaction and learning with computers in small groups. Computers in Human Behaviour, 3, 193-209.
     • Educational Psychologist. (2013). 48, 1. Special issue on computer-supported collaborative learning.

2. Assessment criteria:

   • 1) Clarity of expression (including accuracy, spelling, grammar, punctuation, use of language, expression of ideas)
   • 2) Subject/discipline content & knowledge
   • 3) Organisation & conceptualization of assessment task
   • 4) Critical analysis and articulation of argument

3. Write a paper which presents the key theoretical approaches in the area, and the main empirical findings. Your paper should have both a summarising function and a critical, evaluative function.

4. Grading Criteria

   • Organisation & conceptualization of assessment task
     • Consistently strong and ongoing demonstration and evidence of superior organisational and conceptual skills. The work is extremely well conceived, coherent, logical, original and lucid as well as professionally prepared
   • Subject/discipline content & knowledge
     • Impressive and original depth of understanding of the content and discipline is displayed. Information is gathered from a wide range of current & relevant sources beyond the core materials
   • Clarity of expression (including accuracy, spelling, grammar, punctuation, use of language, expression of ideas)
     • Superior clarity in presentation and expression with attention to detail in all aspects evident
   • Critical analysis and articulation of argument
     • Convincing synthesis of evidence, critical analysis and understanding of multiple perspectives to formulate a coherent argument.
   • Critical appraisal of the literature
     • Scholarly critique of a diverse array of literature. Generates, develops, uses and justifies own ideas or original concepts based on a wide range of relevant sources.

5. Creativity

   • sandbox game

6. Cognitive Load

   • VRtechnology

7. Critiques about Computer Instruction

8. Vygotsky

   • Computer can be a teacher
     • ZOD

9. Social-Construct Theory

10. Thses statemet

    • Computer-Based Instruction is furture of Education！！！

11. Help Poor People

    • Cloud school

12. Vygotsky

13. socio-cultural theories

    • Achevement
      • CSCL
      • csCEL

14. CLT

    • VR
    • AR

15. metacognitive perspectives