The Future of Hands-on Learning Technologies: Motivation and Learning in Context<br />Susanna Martin<br />Department of Ps...
Presentation Overview<br />Background<br />Key Concepts<br />Investigation One: Malmesbury<br />Investigation Two: Gower<b...
Background<br />Recent years have seen a move towards hands-on learning in pedagogy.<br />Increased availability of mobile...
Key Concepts<br />Data Loggers<br />Record measurements and store data<br />Combined with GPS<br />Additional Sensors<br /...
Aim:<br />Understand the role of hands-on technology <br />within the current curriculum.<br />Method:<br />7 GCSE Student...
Investigation Two: Gower<br />Aim:<br />Understand the role of hands-on technology with comparison to older types of techn...
Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams<br />Aims<br />To understand the importance of students remaining connected to th...
Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams<br />Methodology<br />46 students (14 girls and 24 boys).<br />Students experienc...
Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams<br />Collection Intervention<br />Self students visited :<br />Pond<br />Field<br...
Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams<br />Presentation Intervention:<br />Pre-Produced<br />
Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams<br />Presentation Intervention:<br />Manual<br />
Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams<br />Presentation Intervention:<br />Software<br />
Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams<br />Learning Results: Four tests, two had significant results.<br />Ability to r...
The manually produced group got significantly worse.</li></li></ul><li>Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams<br />Motiv...
Investigation Three: Ownership and Seams<br />I think collecting data is a waste of time<br /><ul><li>Students who used pr...
Investigation Four: Hands-on Vs Hands-on Technology<br />Aim<br />To investigate Hands-on vs. Hands-on technology within a...
Investigation Four: Hands-on Vs Hands-on Technology<br />Method<br />
Investigation Four: Hands-on Vs Hands-on Technology<br />Results - Learning and confidence in learning.<br />Two questions...
Investigation Four: Hands-on Vs Hands-on Technology<br />Results - Motivation in learning.<br />Two questions showed signi...
Investigation Four: Hands-on Vs Hands-on Technology<br />Initial Conclusions<br />There was no clear difference between th...
Investigation Five: Longitudinal Engagement and Reflection<br />Aim<br />To establish the potential effect of changing the...
Investigation Five: Longitudinal Engagement and Reflection<br />Design<br />6 Modules,<br />Two Taught normally.<br />Two ...
Summary<br />Five different investigations with a common theme.<br />Results indicate qualitatively that there is a benefi...
Knowledge Transfer Project: Plug Back into Science<br />This project was developed with three key aims;<br />To engage wit...
References<br />Cobcroft, R., Towers, S., Smith, J. & Bruns, A. (2006). Mobile Learning in Review: Opportunities and Chall...
The future of hands on learning technologies-no pictures
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

The future of hands on learning technologies-no pictures

1,126 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,126
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The future of hands on learning technologies-no pictures

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

×