Teoria suunnittelu a_otvt

308 views
224 views

Published on

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

No Downloads
Views
Total views
308
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Teoria suunnittelu a_otvt

  1. 1. Kurkistus teoriaan ja teknologiatuenopetuksen suunnitteluunAineopettajien tvt-kurssi. Kevät 2013.Jari Laru, KT, kasvatustieteiden tiedekunta, Oulun yliopisto2013
  2. 2. Oppimisen ja koulutusteknologian tutkimusyksikkö (LET)http://www.oulu.fi/letKoulutusteknologian opinnot ovatPerehtymistä uusimpaan tutkimustietoonoppimisestaYhteisöllinen oppiminenItsesäätöinen oppiminenAsiantuntijaksi oppiminenMonipuolisia teknologiaratkaisujaYhteistyötä paikallisten työnantajien kanssaKansainvälistä yhteistyötäOma viiteryhmäni on oppimisen jakoulutusteknologian tutkimus
  3. 3. JAETTU KOGNITIO, KOGNITIIVISETTYÖKALUT
  4. 4. Photos: Openclipart.orgTYÖKALU KOGNITIIVINEN TYÖKALU
  5. 5. Jaettu kognitio
  6. 6. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition inthe wild. Cambridge, Mass: MITPress.
  7. 7. TIETOKONEAVUSTEINENYHTEISÖLLINEN OPPIMINEN (CSCL)
  8. 8. From PPT by Jermann, P. Scripting collaboration with ManyScripts http://manyscripts.epfl.ch/
  9. 9. Simple tools, richpedagogicalpractises (Roschelle,2002)
  10. 10. Suunnittelu on A&O
  11. 11. http://www.slideshare.net/larux/luento-4-oppimisen-uudet-mallit-ja-teoriat
  12. 12. Osatutkimus I: Ei vaiheistusta,teknologiausko 100%
  13. 13. Osatutkimus II: Vaiheistusta, muttatarkempana vain tietyissä vaiheissa
  14. 14. Osatutkimus III (hyvin tarkka vaiheistus,teoreettisesti perusteltu)
  15. 15. VUOROVAIKUTUKSEN TUTKIMUKSESTAJA TUKEMISESTA KOHTI ITSESÄÄTELYÄJA SEN TUKEMISTA
  16. 16. Oppimisen (jaettu) itsesäätely
  17. 17. OPETTAJAN ROOLI MUUTTUU..
  18. 18. Opettajan tehtävä onjärjestää oppimistilanteita– orkestroida..Dillenbourg, P. (2010), Theappeal of motionless devices ina world where everythingmoves. Keynote talk at the 6thIEEE WMUTE 2010Conference, Kaohsiung,Taiwan, accessed on June 29,2011 athttp://wmute2010.cl.ncu.edu.tw/Pierre%20DILLENBOURG.pdf.
  19. 19. Simple tools, richpedagogical practises(Roschelle, 2002)
  20. 20. “Tänään koulunsa aloittavalapsi on työelämässä vielävuonna 2074” (HS, Elokuu2012)
  21. 21. B. TEKNOLOGIATUETUN OPETUKSENSUUNNITTELUSTA MUUTAMASANANEN
  22. 22. “Hankin aikoinanikaikkiopetusohjelmat.KAIKKI. Siis hankinihan kaikki.Pyrin hallitsemaanniiden käyttämisentäydellisesti. Sittenhuomasin että se eiole mahdollista”(Norssi, 08, 2012)
  23. 23. Tilat,materiaalit ja välineet Tukiresurssit; henkilöt, pääsytiloihin, jne.PedagogiikkaToimintakulttuuriInfrastruktuuriHeikki Kontturi
  24. 24. Heikki Kontturi
  25. 25. KeskusteleNäet kohta janan. Sijoita laitteet jasovellukset mielestäsi oikeaan paikkaan
  26. 26. TVT:n rooli opetuksessaResurssinaDialoginmahdollista-janaYhteistoiminnanmahdollistajanaOpettajalähtöinenopetusOpiskelijalähtöinenopetusHeikki KontturiVälineenäBLOGWIKIMS OFFICEKÄSITEKARTTAOPTIMA
  27. 27. Sijoita nämä laitteet/ohjelmatjanalleMobiililaitteetInteraktiiviset taulut ja -pöydätDokumenttikameratBLOGWIKIMS OFFICEKÄSITEKARTTAOPTIMA
  28. 28. TVT:n rooli opetuksessaResurssinaDialoginmahdollista-janaYhteistoiminnanmahdollistajanaOpettajalähtöinenopetusOpiskelijalähtöinenopetusHeikki KontturiVälineenäBLOGWIKIMS OFFICEKÄSITEKARTTAOPTIMA
  29. 29. TVT:n rooli opetuksessaResurssinaDialoginmahdollista-janaYhteistoiminnanmahdollistajanaOpettajalähtöinenopetusOpiskelijalähtöinenopetusHeikki KontturiVälineenäBLOGWIKIMS OFFICEKÄSITEKARTTAOPTIMA
  30. 30. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r-05DLY4Sc&list=FL1tYE1J2UQSbY_0EGL63iPw&index=1&feature=plpp_video
  31. 31. TVT:n rooli opetuksessaResurssinaDialoginmahdollista-janaYhteistoiminnanmahdollistajanaOpettajalähtöinenopetusOpiskelijalähtöinenopetusHeikki KontturiVälineenäBLOGWIKIMS OFFICEKÄSITEKARTTAOPTIMA
  32. 32. AIMS from past to todayThis thesis work focuses on developing and analyzinginnovative ways of supporting applying the framework ofdistributed scaffolding for learning activities in authenticreal world contexts.In this study theoretical ideas of cognitive tools,collaborative learning and scaffolding are applied fordesigning light-weight mobile software and pedagogicalmodels for learning in authentic real world contexts.This is done in order to generate new knowledge andsolutions that advance collaborative learning in mobilecomputer supported collaborative learning
  33. 33. EMI ILE INTHIGCase Iworkplace (n=10)Case IIIUniversity (N=22)IntroductionEarli SIGCase IINature (N=22)Mobile computers Everyday contextsScaffolding collaborativelearning with cognitivetools based onmobilecomputersMaster’s programme,University, ProfessionalCommunity, K-12 students,Higher Education students,Nature school
  34. 34. Collaborative learning, Cognitive toolsScaffolding, Structuringidiosyncratic (verylittle coercion)scripted (lowcoercion)stringent (highcoercion)
  35. 35. Laru, J. & Järvelä, S. (2008). Social patterns in mobile technology mediated collaboration among members of the professional distance educationcommunity. Educational Media International Journal, 45(1),17-3.The aim of this study was to identify social patterns in mobile technology mediated collaboration among distributed members of theprofessional distance education community. Ten participants worked for twelve weeks designing a master’s programme in InformationSciences. The participants’ mobile technology usage activity and interview data were first analyzed to get an overview of the densityand distribution of collaboration at individual and community levels. Secondly, the results of the social network analyses wereinterpreted to explore how different social network patterns of relationships affect online and offline interactions. Thirdly, qualitativedescriptions of participant teamwork were analysed to provide practical examples and explanations. Overall, the analyses revealednonparticipative behaviour within the online community. The social network analysis revealed structural holes and sparse collaborationamong participants in the offline community. It was found that due to their separated practices in the offline community, they didn’thave a need for mobile collaboration tools in their practices.In this single-case study, small groups of learners were supported by use of multiple social software tools and face-to-face activities in the context ofhigher education. The aim of the study was to explore how designed learning activities contribute to students’ learning outcomes by studyingprobabilistic dependencies between the variables. The participants (n=22) worked in groups of four to five students for 12 weeks. Groups wererequired to complete a wiki project by the end of the semester. In order to complete the wiki project, students needed to participate in recurrentsolo and collective phases mediated by the use of social software tools and face-to-face meetings in their respective sessions. The data formultivariate Bayesian analysis was composed of video recordings, social software usage activity and pre- and post-tests of students’ conceptualunderstanding. In our case, we found that using social software tools together to perform multiple tasks likely increased individual knowledgeacquisition during the course. Bayesian classification analysis revealed that the best predictors of good learning outcomes were wiki-relatedactivities. In addition, according to the Bayesian dependency model, students who monitored their peers’ work via syndication services and whowere active by adding, modifying or deleting text in their group’s wiki obtained higher scores. The model also shows that many other learningactivities were indirectly related to learning outcome.This study explores how collaborative inquiry learning can be supported with multiple scaffolding agents in a real-life field trip context. Inpractice, a mobile peer-to-peer messaging tool provided meta-cognitive and procedural support, while tutors and a nature guide providedmore dynamic scaffolding in order to support argumentative discussions between groups of students during the cocreationof knowledge claims. The aim of the analysis was to identify and compare top- and low-performing dyads/triads in order to reveal thedifferences regarding their co-construction of arguments while creating knowledge claims. Although the results revealed several shortcomingsin the types of argumentation, it could be established that differences between the top performers and low performers were statisticallysignificant in terms of social modes of argumentation, the use of warrants in the mobile tool and in overall participation. Ingeneral, the use of the mobile tool likely promoted important interaction during inquiry learning, but led to superficial epistemological qualityin the knowledge claim messages.Laru, J., Järvelä, S. & Clariana, R. (2010). Supporting collaborative inquiry during a biology field trip with mobile peer-to-peer tools forlearning: a case study with K-12 learners. Interactive Learning Environments, Online first, 1-15. doi:10.1080/10494821003771350Laru, J., Näykki, P. & Järvelä, S. (2011). Supporting small-group learning using multiple Web 2.0 tools: A case study in the higher educationcontext. Special issue on Web 2.0 on Higher Education. Journal of Internet and Higher Education.Supporting small-group learning using multiple Web 2.0 tools: A case study in the higher education contextSupporting collaborative inquiry during a biology field trip with mobile peer-to-peer tools for learning: acase study with K-12 learnersSocial patterns in mobile technology mediated collaboration among members of the professional distanceeducation community
  36. 36. Supporting small-group learning using multiple Web 2.0 tools: A case study in the higher education contextSupporting collaborative inquiry during a biology field trip with mobile peer-to-peer tools for learning: acase study with K-12 learnersSocial patterns in mobile technology mediated collaboration among members of the professional distanceeducation communityQuestions1. What is the density and the distribution of the collaboration atindividual and community levels in the online and offline communities?2. How do different social network patterns of relationships affect onlineand offline interactions?3. How do participants describe teamwork and the technologies used tosupport it?1. What were the differences between top and low performers in regardsto collaborative inquiry learning during the field trip? groups?2. What was the difference between top and low performers in regards tothe structural quality of knowledge claim messages?3. How much did the top and low performers learn about biology duringthe field trip?1. How much did students learn during the course?2. Which social software and face-to-face variables were the best predictorsfor identifying differences between high- and low-performing groups ofstudents?3. What was the impact of social software and face-to-face sessions onindividual students learning gain?
  37. 37. Supporting small-group learning using multiple Web 2.0 tools: A case study in the higher education contextSupporting collaborative inquiry during a biology field trip with mobile peer-to-peer tools for learning: acase study with K-12 learnersSocial patterns in mobile technology mediated collaboration among members of the professional distanceeducation community• 1st generation: mobileversions of desktop tools:FLE3mobile• wlan• 2nd generation: context-aware peer-to-peer mobiletools: flyers• mobile encounter network(bluetooth)• 3nd generation: mobile socialmedia: mobile clients + flickr+ wordpress + wikispaces +google reader• 3G connectivityTools
  38. 38. Supporting small-group learning using multiple Web 2.0 tools: A case study in the higher education contextSupporting collaborative inquiry during a biology field trip with mobile peer-to-peer tools for learning: acase study with K-12 learnersSocial patterns in mobile technology mediated collaboration among members of the professional distanceeducation community• Dyads/Triads• Ill-structured task• Argumentative collaboration• Procedural scaffolding & metacognitivescaffoldingDesign ”Let’s try it” ..• No groups designed (participants worked inthree teams though)• No clear task, work related activities (no formallearning)• Knowledge building• Metacognitive scaffolding• 4-5 students per group• Ill-structured tasks• Small groups of learners were supported bymultiple social software tools and face-to-faceactivities• Recurrent individual and collaborative phases• Multiple scaffolds
  39. 39. Laru, J. & Järvelä, S. (2008). Social patterns in mobiletechnology mediated collaboration among members of theprofessional distance education community. EducationalMedia International Journal, 45(1),17-3.
  40. 40. Laki, normit ja perinne..
  41. 41. Sosiaalisen median palveluidenkäyttöehdothttp://www.edu.fi/materiaaleja_ja_tyotapoja/tvt_opetuksessa/sosiaalisen_median_kayttoehdot_opetuksessa/taulukko_sosiaalisen_median_palveluiden_kayttoehdoista
  42. 42. http://www.slideshare.net/larux/multimedia-iv-valmiiden-tuotosten-kyttminen-ja-omien-jakaminen-tekijnoikeuden-valossa
  43. 43. http://www.jarilaru.euhttp://slideshare.net/laruxhttp://www.mendeley.com/profiles/jari-laruKIITOS
  44. 44. “Tänään koulunsaaloittava lapsi ontyöelämässä vielävuonna 2074” (HS,Elokuu 2012)

×