Instructor: Sadhana Puntambekar
Room: 697, Educational Sciences puntambekar@education.wisc.edu
Office Hours: Tuesday 2-4 and by appointment
|
|
This
course explores issues of design and use of learning technologies
in classroom settings. We will explore several questions
about how specific interactive environments are designed
and implemented, as well as how they impact classroom dynamics
and student learning. What are the underlying theories of
teaching and learning that have influenced design of a particular
learning environment? What factors contribute to the use
of interactive environments in a classroom? What role does
the teacher play? How can we assess student learning in
a technology rich learning environment?
We will focus on three main themes. First, we will explore
the theoretical underpinnings that have informed the design
of learning environments. Second, we will discuss how factors
in the classroom environment, such as teacher facilitation,
curriculum and student interactions impact the ways in which
learning technologies are used in a classroom. Third, we
will explore how a systematic study of the design of learning
environments can be achieved by examining both learning
outcomes and classroom enactments.
Class participation – 25%
Reaction summaries: 2 pages each – 35%
Design Proposal – 40%
Class participation and reaction summaries
For
each class, you are required to prepare a reaction summary
(2 pages) that will address important issues or questions
from the assigned readings. Please note that you will be
required to discuss the issues in class. So prepare a thoughtful
response that can help start a discussion, as you might
be asked to lead a discussion. We will take turns leading
discussions in each class.
Please bring your summary to class and be prepared to discuss
it. You are also required to participate actively in the
class. A large part of your final grade is based on class
participation.
Reaction
summaries are due on the day the topic is discussed in class.
Design project
Your final project will be the design of a learning environment
for teaching in a particular domain. You will include in
your proposal the theory that your design is based on, the
domain that your design addresses, identified student needs
in that domain and how your design will address these needs.
You can either design curriculum to use existing technology,
or propose a design for new technology. You can include
mock screen shots to illustrate features of your software
environment. You will need to prepare a report to address
the following:
| • |
Objectives
- what is the domain or skill that you wish to support? |
| • |
Audience - Who are your students? What are the known
student needs in this domain and how are you addressing
them in your design? |
| • |
Philosophy
- What are the epistemologies that have guided the design
of that technology? Why do you think they are appropriate
for this domain? |
| • |
Rationale
for using technology - How does the technology meet
the objectives that you have set? |
| • |
Assessment
- How will you assess whether or nor students are learning,
what are the types of data that you will collect |
| • |
Describe
the activity (or activities) students will undertake,
the time frame, and the products they will produce (with
examples where possible). |
| • |
References
/ Bibliography in APA format. |
We will have project milestones along the way, so that you can get feedback on your designs.
Project milestones
For each milestone, please prepared to discuss your work
in class and to give feedback to others in the class.
Initial ideas – Due on September 25th
Your initial ideas should include a rationale for the domain
that you have chosen and why you have chosen that domain,
preliminary ideas about your design.
Theoretical assumptions – October 23
What are the theoretical assumptions underlying your design?
These might be preliminary at this stage. You can refine
them based on discussion in class.
Preliminary design ideas – November 20
Final project due December 11
Extensions
will not be available, except in extreme circumstances.
9/4: Introduction
9/11: Scaffolding
student learning: Issues and Approaches
Stone, C. A. (1998). The
metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
31(4), 344-364.
Stone, C. A. (1998). Should
we salvage the scaffolding metaphor? Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 409-413.
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Keeping
the Metaphor of Scaffolding Fresh--A Response to C. Addison
Stone's "The Metaphor of Scaffolding: Its Utility
for the Field of Learning Disabilities". Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 370-373.
9/18:
Technology support for scaffolding
Reiser, Brian J. (2004). Scaffolding
complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing
student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences:
13(3), 273-304.
Quintana C., Reiser B.J., Davis E.A., Krajcik J., Fretz
E., Duncan R.G., Kyza E., Edelson D. & Soloway E.
(2004) Scaffolding
the design framework for software to support science inquiry.
Journal of the Learning Sciences 13 (3), 337–386.
McNeill, K. L. & Krajcik, J. (2006, April). Supporting
students’ construction of scientific explanation
through generic versus context-specific written scaffolds.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A
Complement to Emerging Patterns of Distributed Scaffolding,
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305-335.
Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005) Tools
for scaffolding students in a complex environment: What
have we gained and what have we missed? Educational
Psychologist. Vol. 40 (1), 1-12.
9/25:
Learning from digital text |
|
Project milestone: Initial ideas
Rouet, J-F. (2006). Comprehending
multiple documents. In J-F. Rouet, The skills of
document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning,
(pp. 62-91).
Rouet, J-F. (2006). Using
hypertext systems. In J-F. Rouet, The skills of document
use: From text comprehension to web-based learning,
(pp. 122-138).
Shapiro, A., & Niederhauser, D. (2004). Learning
from hypertext: Research issues and findings. In D.
H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational
communications and technology (2nd ed.) (pp. 605-620).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
McNamara, D.S., & Shapiro, A.M. (2005). Multimedia
and hypermedia solutions for promoting metacognitive engagement,
coherence, and learning. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 33, 1-29.
10/2: Intelligent
tutoring systems
Nwana H.S. (1990). Intelligent
Tutoring Systems: an overview . Artificial Intelligence
Review, 4, 251-277
Brusilovsky, P. (2004). Adaptive
navigation support: From adaptive hypermedia to the adaptive
Web and beyond. Psychology 2 (1).
Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., Schwartz, D., Vye, N. & The
Teachable Agents Group at Vanderbilt (2005). Learning
By Teaching: A New Agent Paradigm for Educational Software,
Applied Artificial Intelligence, vol. 19, (pp.
363-392).
Gupta, R., Wu, Y. & Biswas, G. (2005). Teaching
about Dynamic Processes: A Teachable Agents Approach,
The twelfth International Conference on AI in Education,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, (pp. 241-248).
Lab: ELM-ART
10/9: Learning with
Hand-held devices
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., Vavoula, G. (2005) Towards
a theory of mobile learning. To be published in Proceedings
of mLearn 2005 Conference, Cape Town.
Roschelle, J., Patton, C., Tatar, D. (2007). Designing
networked handheld devices to enhance school learning.
In M. Zelkowitz, Ed. Advances in Computers, 70,
1-60.
Vahey, P., Tatar, D., & Roschelle, J. (2007). Using
handheld technology to move between private and public interactions
in the classroom. In M. van 't Hooft & K. Swan (Eds.).
Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology,
visible impact (pp. 187-210). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
10/16: Constructionism
Papert, S. (1996) Situating
Constructionism In I. Harel and S. Papert, Constructionism,
Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
Resnick, M., Berg, R., and Eisenberg, M. (2000). Beyond
Black Boxes: Bringing Transparency and Aesthetics Back to
Scientific Investigation. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 7-30.
Eisenberg, M. (2003). Mindstuff:
Educational Technology Beyond the Computer. Convergence.
Lab: Javagami
| 10/23:
Learning from simulations |
|
Project
Milestone: Initial proposal
10/30: Learning
from multiple representations
Ainsworth, S.E (2006) DeFT:
A conceptual framework for learning with multiple representations,
Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.
Ainsworth, S.E., (1999) A
functional taxonomy of multiple representations. Computers
and Education, 33(2/3), 131-152
Kozma, R. (2003). Material
and Social Affordances of Multiple Representations for Science
Understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2),
205-226.
11/6: Computer supported
collaborative learning
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer
support for knowledge building communities. Journal
of the learning sciences, 3(3), pp. 265-283.
More readings to follow
11/13:
Design of learning environments, role of the teacher and
curricula
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking,
R. R. (1999). How People Learn. Washington D. C.:
National Academy Press. Chapter 6: Design of learning environments
Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Goldstein, J., (2007).
Comparing Classroom
Enactments of an Inquiry Curriculum: Lessons Learned From
Two Teachers. Journal of the Learning Sciences.
16(1), 81-130.
Davis, E. A. & Krajcik, J. S. (2005) Designing
Educative Curriculum Materials to Promote Teacher Learning,
Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14.
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform
by the book: What is—or might be—the role of
curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional
reform? Educational Researcher, 25, 6–8,
14.
Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (2001). Making
change: Instruction and its improvement. Phi Delta
Kappan, 83(1), 73–77.
11/20: Design-based
research
Project milestone: Preliminary design ideas
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design
Experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in
creating complex interventions in classroom settings.
Journal of the learning sciences, 2 (2), 141-178.
Collins, A. The Changing Infrastructure of Education Research
More to follow
| 11/27:
Assessment of student learning: Log files, concept maps |
|
Osmundson, E., Chung, G. K. W. K., Herl, H. E.,
& Klein, D. C. D. Knowledge
Mapping in the Classroom: A Tool for Examining the Development
of Students' Conceptual Understandings
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S., Li, M., Shavelson, R. J.
On the
Cognitive Validity of Interpretations of Scores From Alternative
Concept Mapping Techniques
Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Hübscher, R.
(2003) Improving navigation and learning in hypertext environments
with navigable concept maps. Human Computer Interaction,
18 (4), pp. 395-426. (Will be emailed to class)
12/4
Independent work on projects: I will be available for feedback.
Project presentations
|
IES
NGLC
CAREER
NSDL
SLC CATALYST
CoMPASS is housed within the Wisconsin Center for Education Research