The future of hands on learning technologies-no pictures

  • 900 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
900
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. The Future of Hands-on Learning Technologies: Motivation and Learning in Context
    Susanna Martin
    Department of Psychology, University of Bath
    Danaë Stanton Fraser, Mike Fraser, Dawn Woodgate and David Crellin.
  • 2. Presentation Overview
    Background
    Key Concepts
    Investigation One: Malmesbury
    Investigation Two: Gower
    Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams
    Investigation Four: Hands-on Vs Hands-on Technology
    Knowledge Transfer Project: Plug Back into Science
    Investigation Five: Longitudinal Engagement and Reflection
    Summary
  • 3. Background
    Recent years have seen a move towards hands-on learning in pedagogy.
    Increased availability of mobile data loggers which allow children to explore field sites, collect and evaluate data to gain a sense of the real-world process of scientific research. [Cobcroft 2006].
    The Ambient Wood project [Rogers 2004] demonstrated the value of mobile and embedded technologies for students collecting data ‘in the wild’.
    The Participate project identified qualitative relationships between contextual media and learning [Woodgate 2005].
    Ownership of data
    Motivation
    Our interest is in researching the relationships in a more quantitative manner.
  • 4. Key Concepts
    Data Loggers
    Record measurements and store data
    Combined with GPS
    Additional Sensors
    Seams
    Instances of disruption to the process.
    Seamful = disjointed process
    Seamless = fluid transition
    Context
    ‘Context of Doing’
    Information gained from the experience
    ‘Contextual Media’
    Additional information provided through media
  • 5. Aim:
    Understand the role of hands-on technology
    within the current curriculum.
    Method:
    7 GCSE Students completing their Environmental Science coursework.
    Observed in the field and in the class room.
    Findings:
    The teachers enjoyed the potential of the data loggers but were restricted by availability and time.
    Students were positive, especially after they were familiar with the equipment.
    Students shared their data and collaborated closely.
    Some students were unclear about what their data was.
    Investigation One: Malmesbury
  • 6. Investigation Two: Gower
    Aim:
    Understand the role of hands-on technology with comparison to older types of technology.
    Method:
    AS Level Students completing their Environmental Science coursework.
    Observed in the field.
    Findings:
    The students were quick to learn.
    The students were motivated to explore the loggers and their functions.
    Students appreciated the GPS connection.
    Students appreciated the instant feedback of the loggers.
  • 7. Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams
    Aims
    To understand the importance of students remaining connected to their work in terms of motivation and learning.
    Hypotheses
    Motivation will improve for data acquired in context (self-collected)
    Understanding will improve for data acquired in context (self-collected)
    Ability to answer questions on graphs will improve at post-test when students have generated graphs themselves (regardless of whether they use software or create graphs by hand, rather than having been given pre-produced graphs).
    Pre-generated graphs will be better understood if students acquired the data themselves.
  • 8. Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams
    Methodology
    46 students (14 girls and 24 boys).
    Students experienced different levels of data interaction during the collection and presentation of the data.
    Pre and Posts tests to assess learning and motivation changes.
  • 9. Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams
    Collection Intervention
    Self students visited :
    Pond
    Field
    Construction Area
    Peer students
    Learnt about sound inside the classroom
  • 10. Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams
    Presentation Intervention:
    Pre-Produced
  • 11. Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams
    Presentation Intervention:
    Manual
  • 12. Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams
    Presentation Intervention:
    Software
  • 13. Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams
    Learning Results: Four tests, two had significant results.
    Ability to read from a graph:
    A significant difference within the peer group.
    • Students who used the pre-produced graphs had better post test scores than those who manually produced graphs.
    Ability to draw a graph:
    All students showed decrease in scores.
    • The self group showed a significant decrease.
    • 14. The manually produced group got significantly worse.
  • Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams
    Motivation Results:
    5 Statements linked to motivation.
    Likert Scale
    I enjoy using computers to draw graphs –Non Significant
    I think collecting data is a waste of time- Significant
    I like working with data I have collected- Significant
    Three Choice Answer
    Which set of data did you feel more comfortable working with?-Significant
    Which set of data do you feel you can explain better?-Significant
  • 15. Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams
    I think collecting data is a waste of time
    • Students who used pre-produced graphs, changed their view in a positive direction (percentages)
    I like working with data I have collected
    • Students who self collected showed a positive change in opinion.
  • Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams
    Which set of data did you feel more comfortable with?
    68% of the self students preferred location A (their own data).
    62% of the peer students felt no difference between locations A and B.
    Which set of data did you feel you could explain better?
    60% of the self students felt they had better understanding of location A (the location which they visited).
    Only 18% of the peer students preferred Location A.
  • 16. Investigation Four: Hands-on Vs Hands-on Technology
    Aim
    To investigate Hands-on vs. Hands-on technology within a class room environment.
    Hypotheses
    That motivation would be more positively affected by the technology intervention than the traditional.
    Student learning will be more positively affected by the technology intervention than the traditional.
    Student confidence in their learning will improve following intervention regardless of whether their learning scores change.
  • 17. Investigation Four: Hands-on Vs Hands-on Technology
    Method
  • 18. Investigation Four: Hands-on Vs Hands-on Technology
    Results - Learning and confidence in learning.
    Two questions showed significant responses and one question had a ceiling effect.
    When considering if a described experiment was a fair test there was a significant difference overall. However closer inspection showed that students changed their mind in both directions.
    When reporting the resting heart rate, all students improved in their confidence with regard to their response
  • 19. Investigation Four: Hands-on Vs Hands-on Technology
    Results - Motivation in learning.
    Two questions showed significant responses.
    Responses showed that students in the manual group became more positive towards the statement “I like working with data I have collected”
    All students showed a decline in agreement towards “I think data collected using special equipment is more accurate.”
  • 20. Investigation Four: Hands-on Vs Hands-on Technology
    Initial Conclusions
    There was no clear difference between the two hands on experiences.
    The data loggers confused the students as they challenged their current perceptions.
    Any form of hands on experience had a positive learning, and motivation effect with students becoming more confident in their answers.
    Future Analysis
    Consider the relationship between a students accuracy and their confidence.
    Repeat the procedure using a different logger.
  • 21. Investigation Five: Longitudinal Engagement and Reflection
    Aim
    To establish the potential effect of changing the level of interaction with resources, upon a student in terms of their reflection and engagement with the subject.
    Research Questions
    Does generating Context Inclusive (CI) data affect a student’s motivation, engagement and reflection towards a topic?
    Do topics with a greater use of data logging technologies affect the levels of engagement reported by the students?
    Do students do better in end of module tests when they have shown greater levels of reflection and engagement during the module?
  • 22. Investigation Five: Longitudinal Engagement and Reflection
    Design
    6 Modules,
    Two Taught normally.
    Two taught with cameras added to allow the students to generate their own contextual media.
    Two taught with an increased number of data loggers, to provide ‘context of doing’, students are also provided with cameras in these lessons.
    Measurement
    Comparison is made across module (teacher uses a standardised test).
    Comparison with a parallel class.
    Comparison with results from previous 6 modules.
    Students complete a motivation questionnaire.
    Potential to investigate type of photos taken by the students.
    Interview with the teacher.
  • 23. Summary
    Five different investigations with a common theme.
    Results indicate qualitatively that there is a benefit to hands on learning technologies.
    However, experience shows quantitative data can be hard to collect.
    Our mixed method approach is the first step towards providing quantitative understanding of the impact of hands-on technology.
    Any Questions?
  • 24. Knowledge Transfer Project: Plug Back into Science
    This project was developed with three key aims;
    To engage with teachers
    To share ideas and experiences
    To influence policy
    Workshops
    Collaborate with teachers
    Learn from others
  • 25. References
    Cobcroft, R., Towers, S., Smith, J. & Bruns, A. (2006). Mobile Learning in Review: Opportunities and Challenges for Learners, Teachers and Institutions. In Proceedings Online Learning and Teaching Conference (pp. 21-30).
    Rogers, Y., Price, S., Fitzpatrick, G., Fleck, R., Harris, E., Smith, H., et al. (2004). Ambient Wood : Designing New Forms of Digital Augmentation for Learning Outdoors. Third International Conference for Interaction Design and Children, 3-10. ACM.
    Woodgate, D. & Fraser, D. (2005). eScience and Education 2005: A Review. JISC Report. jisc.org.uk. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/programme_eresearch/escience_in_education_review.aspx.