2012 EduTech SST Mobile Learning Presentation

718 views

Published on

EduTech Seminar 2012 - Fostering Critical Thinking Skills and In-situ Knowledge Building through Mobile Learning Presentation Slides

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
718
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
138
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Presentation 20mins Q&A 10mins
  • Idea Generation Idea Sharing Idea Improvement Rise Above
  • We used three types of surveys to measure student perceptions about how the mobile learning trail and pre and post-trail lessons designed based on KB pedagogy impacted their (1) critical thinking skills and (2) collaborative learning skills. In addition, students ’ perception about the effectiveness of mobile learning was measured through the survey. The critical thinking survey was administered twice to detect the difference between and after the intervention. This slides shows constructs measured in each survey and internal reliability of the surveys. Overall, the Cronbach ’ alpha values indicate that the surveys had satisfactory levels of internal reliability (all above .70).
  • This slides presents means and standard deviations of the critical thinking survey in a Likert Scale range of 1-5. Overall, it shows that students perception improved from pre-survey to post-survey in all factors, except Mental focus. T-test indicates that the difference in Cognitive Integrity was statistically significant.
  • appropriating and coupling of relevant mobile devices and web 2.0 technologies need for customizable applications for mobile learning shifting desired learning outcomes and assessment methods from individual performance merit to productive critique and collective cognitive intelligence
  • 2012 EduTech SST Mobile Learning Presentation

    1. 1. Fostering Critical Thinking Skills and In-situ Knowledge Building throughMobile Learning Aurelius YEO, Evelyn TEO, James KOH, Kassandra LIMEduTech Conference 2012 (03 Sept 2012)
    2. 2. Presentation Outline Our context: SST Our Journey: RQ1 Designing collaborative knowledge building spaces Our Journey: RQ2 Impact on critical thinking and knowledge building skills Scaling Up: Humanities and Biology Learning Trail Hands On Session Our Journey: RQ3 Challenges and implications Summary
    3. 3. Our Context• School of Science & Technology (SST) as one of the Future Schools in Singapore• Focus: creating pervasive knowledge building spaces• Design considerations and challenges to promote core 21st century skills • Critical thinking skill • Knowledge building skill
    4. 4. Our Context• Design & deploy innovative teaching approaches at a school-wide level• Putting in place school infrastructure which promotes interactive and engaging learning spaces • socio-technical infrastructure • small classroom size (20-25 students per class)• Engaging in research to develop evidence-based pedagogies
    5. 5. Our Journey: Designing Knowledge BuildingSpaces in Integrated Humanities
    6. 6. Our Journey: Knowledge Building as a Pedagogy• Defining KB✓ “knowledge-building pedagogy places the main emphasis on contributions to the progress of knowledge-building discourse.” Scardamalia & Bereiter(1999)• Core ideas of KB✓ Trying to make sense of information about a topic of interest almost always ensures that they are KB type activities✓ Construing knowledge building as the solving of knowledge problems• Why KB?✓ School as learning community.” Scardamalia & Bereiter (1999)
    7. 7. Our Journey: Research Questions• How do we create knowledge building spaces with the mediation of mobile technologies and applications?• How has knowledge building activities, coupled with technological affordances fostered the development of core 21st century skills such as critical thinking and collaborative learning skills?• What are the challenges and issues that we have faced in this transition?
    8. 8. Research Qn 1. How do we createknowledge building spaces with themediation of mobile technologies andapplications?
    9. 9. designing knowledge building spacesdesign consideration1: intentional learning Team generates pre-trail inquirieslearning how to formulate inquiryquestions and to improve ideasintentionally
    10. 10. designconsideration 2:collaborativelearning in-class small group work•learning how to work together•fostering collective cognitiveagency small group collaboration on trail
    11. 11. designconsideration 3:pervasive KB post-trail collaborative group work on reflection questionsengaging in KB discourse in andout of school battlefield trail @ Bukit Chandu battlefield trail forum discussion
    12. 12. designconsideration 4: Sentosa Traillearning trail Battlefield Trail• knowledge building in-situ (on location)• anchoring learning experiences from abstract to concrete
    13. 13. Geography Sentosa Trail video clip 1:17 sec 24 March 2010
    14. 14. video clip 2:00 secHistory Battlesite Trail pics and show video clip Jul 2010
    15. 15. Humanities Fort Siloso Sneak Preview 00:58 sec Trail
    16. 16. Research Qn2. How has knowledgebuilding activities, coupled withtechnological affordances fostered thedevelopment of core 21st century skillssuch as critical thinking and collaborativelearning skills?
    17. 17. methodology✓design research • design-improvement, iterative process✓multiple data sources • online survey (Critical Thinking Skills, Collaborative Learning & Mobile Learning Trail) • focus group interview • discourse analysis of three groups’ talk
    18. 18. Survey Constructs and Reliability Cronbach’s Alpha Survey Constructs (Factors) No. of Items Pre Post Learning orientation 6 0.90 0.77 Creative problem solving 7 0.80 0.73Critical thinking Mental focus 7 0.83 0.76 Cognitive integrity 5 0.81 0.74 Self-perception 4 0.75 Perception of team members 5 0.93Collaborative Team work 9 0.75learning Progress 5 0.85 Satisfaction with collaboration 8 0.88
    19. 19. Critical Thinking Skill Total Class A Class B Factors (N=41) (N=21) (N=20) Pre Post Pre Post Pre PostLearning 3.16 (.59) 3.27 (.41) 3.13 (.59) 3.20 (.42) 3.19 (.60) 3.35 (.40)orientationCreative problem 2.91 (.54) 3.02 (.46) 2.82 (.49) 2.94 (.44) 3.01 (.60) 3.11 (.47)solvingMental focus 2.79 (.58) 2.79 (.49) 2.69 (.56) 2.68 (.51) 2.89 (.60) 2.91 (.44)Cognitive integrity- Means (SD) in a Likert Scale 1-5 2.94 (.65) 3.21 (.50) 2.88 (.71) 3.13 (.55) 3.00 (.59) 3.30 (.45)* Overall positive improvement between pre-survey and post-survey, except “Mental Focus”-* t- test: Statistically significant difference in “Cognitive Integrity” t(40)= -2.97, p < .01
    20. 20. Collaborative Learning Skill Total Class A Class B Factors (N=41) (N=19) (N=22) Self-perception 4.06 (.55) 4.01 (.50) 4.10 (.59) Team-perception 4.01 (.78) 4.00 (.51) 4.03 (.97) Team work 3.70 (.57) 3.61 (.34) 3.78 (.60) Progress 4.05 (.66) 3.98 (.34) 4.11 (.86) Satisfaction of CL 4.04 (.66) 3.99 (.58) 4.09 (.73)- Means (SD) in a Likert Scale 1-5- Overall positive perceptions toward collaborative learning skills- however, “Team Work” scores are relatively lower than other factors. This may indicate students’difficulty to work collaboratively in a team setting.- No statistically significant difference between genders and classes
    21. 21. Mobile Learning Total Class A Class B Factors (N=41) (N=19) (N=22) Learning effectiveness 4.25 (.42) 4.16 (.44) 4.33 (.39) Satisfaction 4.36 (.57) 4.42 (.53) 4.30 (.62)- Means (SD) in a Likert Scale 1-5- Overall, highly positive perceptions toward the learning effectiveness and satisfaction with mobilelearning- No statistically significant difference between genders and classes
    22. 22. perception open-ended items“3 Things I liked the most” “3 Things I liked the least” Category Frequency Category FrequencyLocation-based Learning 60 Heat & Exhaustion 28 Trail Design 16 Duration 24 Mobile Device & Facilitation 10 16 Wireless
    23. 23. focus group interview• Curriculum Design• • Trail design• Pace for history trail was tight; driven by trail activities.• Pre and post trail were useful as tuning-in and follow-up activities respectively• • Curriculum and Online Platform• More scaffolding and facilitation needed for use of new online platforms.
    24. 24. focus group interview• Collaboration• • Understanding the Benefits of Collaboration •Students knew the value of group work and would appreciate undertaking different levels of group work.• • Collaboration and Technology •Affordance and control of the devices affected students’ collaboration especially when the sharing of one device on learning trail is concerned.•• Technology• • Mediation of Technology •The technology impacted the time and pattern of doing discussion on reflection questions while on the move.• • Appropriation of Technology• The size, the interface and the sustainability of devices are factors needed to be considered.
    25. 25. Our Journey: Impact on critical thinking andknowledge building skills• Relatively low barriers for introducing and adopting knowledge building pedagogies showed more progress in the journey towards KB• Students’ positive perceptions and attitude toward collaborative learning, mobile learning, and authentic learning experiences• No significant differences in terms of gender and academic ability levels
    26. 26. Scaling Up: Humanities and Biology LearningTrail• Big Idea: System• Essential Questions:• What will affect the abiotic factors?• Are there differences in the abiotic factors between the 3 locations along Singapore River? If yes, why?• Are there differences in the abiotic factors between Singapore River and school pond? If yes, why?
    27. 27. HypothesisQuality of water at river mouth is better and therefore creates a more conduciveenvironment for aquatic lives. This also accounts for the beginning ofcivilisations at the mouth of rivers.
    28. 28. Characteristics of the TaskScientific skills and techniques - use of datalogger and sensors - Interpretation of the data collectedLocation-based learningInquiry-based learning - authentic task for students to apply their science knowledgeCollaborative learning
    29. 29. Water samples were collected at 3 points along SingaporeLearning Activities River (Robertson Quay, Clarke Quay and ACM) and the school pond.
    30. 30. Learning Activities4 abiotic factors were measured: - dissolved oxygen (DO2),nitrates (NO3), pH and temperatureComparisons were made: - for the 3 locations alongSingapore River - Singapore River and schoolpond
    31. 31. Temperature•Influences overall quality of water•Effect on the solubility of gases
    32. 32. Dissolved oxygen•A key component in cellular respiration•Important indicator of water quality
    33. 33. Nitrates•An important source of nitrogen necessary for amino acids and proteins synthesis•High nitrate concentrations nitrate pollution ecological problem
    34. 34. Use of VernierLabQuest2•Interface 4 probes:• Temperature probe• pH sensor• Dissolved oxygen probe• Nitrate ion-selective electrode
    35. 35. Interface with temperatureUse of Vernier sensor connected LabQuest2 LabQuest 2 Video
    36. 36. Use of Vernier Various Probes LabQuest2
    37. 37. Data Collection• Data were collected on sst.squarecrumbs.com• 4 activities:• Measure abiotic factors of river water• Determine the location for ideal water conditions• Explain why the location has ideal water conditions
    38. 38. Measure Abiotic Factors Activity 01
    39. 39. Location for Ideal Activity 02 Conditions
    40. 40. Why Ideal conditions? Activity 03
    41. 41. Importance of Water Activity 04 Quality
    42. 42. Demo: Looking at the other parts of the platformPlatform Exploration
    43. 43. Knowledge Forum Post Trail Discussion
    44. 44. Knowledge Building PedagogicalFrameworkReal Ideas, Authentic ProblemsImprovable IdeasIdea DiversityRise Above
    45. 45. Rise Above Idea Improvement Idea Connection Idea GenerationKnowledge Building Conceptual Post Trail Discussion Framework
    46. 46. ProgressiveKnowledge Building Post Trail Discussion Inquiry Cycle
    47. 47. How KF Works Post Trail Discussion
    48. 48. How Knowledge Forum supports theKnowledge Building process• REAL IDEAS, AUTHENTIC PROBLEMS• Socio-cognitive dynamics: Knowledge problems arise from efforts to understand the world.• Technological dynamics: Platform e.g. K.F. creates a culture for creative work with ideas. Notes and views serve as direct reflections of the core work.• IMPROVABLE IDEAS• Socio-cognitive dynamics: All ideas are treated as improvable. Participants work continuously to improve the quality, coherence, and utility of ideas.• Technological dynamics: Platform supports recursion—there is always a higher level, there is always opportunity to revise. Operations reflect change: continual improvement, revision, refinement.
    49. 49. How Knowledge Forum supports theKnowledge Building process• IDEAS DIVERSITY• Socio-cognitive dynamics: Idea diversity is essential to the development of knowledge advancement• Technological dynamics: Platform links ideas & bring different combinations of ideas to promote the interaction that makes productive use of diversity.• RISE ABOVE• Socio-cognitive dynamics: Creative knowledge building entails working toward more inclusive principles and higher-level formulations of problem.• Technological dynamics: Platform supports rise-above notes & unlimited embedding of ideas in increasingly advanced structures, and support emergent rather than fixed goals.
    50. 50. Research Qn 3: What are the challengesand issues that we have faced in thistransition?
    51. 51. Our Journey: Challenges and implications• Aligning technological affordances with KB pedagogy• Redefining the meaning of teaching & learning in KB context• Reconceptualizing assessment modes that align with KB activities• Equipping & empowering learners with the know-how of collaboration in KB spaces
    52. 52. Our Journey: Challenges and implications• Improvise interim measure in the transitional status: moving from topic-focus to problem-focus task; from cooperative to collaborative undertaking of task• Provide appropriate degree and type of scaffolding to inculcate collaborative knowledge building skills• Require technological and pedagogical orchestration to “promote fluid social interaction structures from individuals, to fixed small groups, to interacting, flexible, opportunistic collaboration”
    53. 53. Q&A
    54. 54. Summary• What are the needs of today’s students?• How do we engage them?• Is cost or students’ learning the key to our purpose?

    ×