Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Philosopher Luciano Floridi describes our era as the result of an information revolution. The information turn has made of us inforgs (connected information organisms) evolving in the infosphere: a place where distinctions between learning from digital on-line – as opposed to physical, off-line one - interactions and contents are less and less relevant. Let us imagine walking in the street with our mobile phone in our pocket (not a huge leap of imagination, in fact). Someone calls from far away, we answer and engage in a conversation about a strange art object we are looking at, right in front of us; a picture of the mysterious object is soon taken, and sent to the phone-friend. The phone-friend, tickled by curiosity, searches the Internet for street exhibitions in our town. Meanwhile, we approach the object, and find a code; we then point the camera of our smart-phone onto the code, and an artist appears next to the mysterious object - on the screen of our phone, of course -, ready to explain the meaning of the artwork, and to guide us - GPS activated - through an entire maze of no-more so mysterious objects of art that are physically installed in town and through another maze of artworks that the same artist has created with digital tools: representations that are activated by special codes disseminated in the town and that we see on the screen of our telephone, when we point the camera on the real spot. By simply using a smart-phone one can experience that “The digital is spilling over into the analogue and merging with it” (Floridi 2007, p. 64), and that the real world is part of the infosphere (the picture you sent to your phone-friend).
  • Does this mean that kids who are born in this post-informatic revolution world are automatically digitally literate? If you think about it: we are born in post-writing revolution, but literacy is still a matter of formal education. Being literate is different from being able to turn ipad pages. The fact that even babies and monkeys can use an Ipad shows how good Steve Jobs’ people are at designing intuitive, user friendly interfaces. Digital literacy cannot be bound to computer related skills, but becomes a matter of gaining an attitude towards the opportunities (and side-effects) represented by new media technologies and practices. Education to the use of digital technologies is still needed, in order to fully exploit their opportunities and take the best of them.But also in order to fully understand what’s in the backstage: the risks, etc.
  • Education is not the place where technologies are the most present. They are certainly not as present as in our workplaces, or in the most of our homes. Just think about mobile phones. But technologies have been developed for education well before the diffusion of mobile phones and video games, or portable computers.In 1954, the psychologist F. B. Skinner had described a machine for teaching. The machine was to be distinguished from purely “passive” technologies such as audio-visual supports. The teaching machine was, just like a teacher, an interactive machine, and interaction was then considered as a crucial aspect of the process of learning and of education. The terms trough which Skinner described his teaching machine are much similar to what we can say today of computers and in general of digital technologies for education: they allow to personalize learning, reduce stress, enhance motivation, reinforce learning, and all this because they allow each student to follow her own rhythm and to receive immediate feedback. Just like a real teacher, in a tutoring conditions. Today’s teaching machines are more sophisticated, but they still resemble to this description. Naturally, there are some notable differences :
  • 1. Thank to modern teaching machines the interaction is not limited to answering questions, one student can also interact with other students. In the “examples of the pictures above, all the kids can share their knowledge and build common knowledge through the machine. Through OLPC connected computers or through the internet and blogs, but also in presence.In a way it is the recognition that there is more in learning than in tutoring, even if we know that tutoring enhances learning. The social network effect.
  • 2. Thank to modern teaching machines, students (and teachers) can retrieve information from real and virtual places, and use it in place or in the school. Two examples: Frequency 1550 and. The first one is a geolocalised game taking place in the historic Amsterdam, aimed at learning history.
  • 3. Thank to modern teaching machines, students can interact with simulations of events (models) that cannot be easily reproduced in school, and that cannot be easily manipulated. Models have a pedagogical value as compared with the interaction with real situations also because they select and enhance relevant information
  • 4. Thank to modern teaching machines, students can interact with simulations, in a playful way. Is there an added value in learning playfully?
  • 6. Thank to modern teaching machines, students can acces information, teachers can present information in new ways, but they can above all create this information. Access and presentation of information are almost certainly the mot diffused uses of technologies in education.
  • 5. Thank to modern teaching machines, students can create contents, and learn how to create digital content.Consulting web pages or gaming is certainly not enough for acquiring digital literacy
  • Is there a, easy and a difficult way for introducing new technologies in education? There are top-down and bottom-up solutions: invading schools with electronic whiteboards or waiting that the simple diffusion of technolgies in the rest of society will do the rest. They do not seem to work very well: in the first case we have teachers using TBI as if they where old blackboards and in the second case there is a lot of resistance and friction on the side of big institutions like schools.There is a third way: colonisation of diffused practices. The case of Mxit is exemplary.
  • Is there a good way and a bad way for using new technologies in education? A general rule can be that of avoiding to use technologies as make-up: the blackboard becomes white and electric, the teacher becomes a robot, but there is no added value and no difference in practiceWe’ve seen that new technologies can help us exploiting interactions at different levels: with other, distant people, with simulations, etc. to create new tools and contents. But they can also help us doing the same things, only with a paint brush of technology. This is not very interesting.
  • Smart pills or nootropics (Adderall, Ritalin,Modafinil… caffeine) are modern technologies for the enhancement of attention, memory, executive functions. They raise health as well as ethical issues. Heavy weights in medicine and neuroscience have made a plea for the use of smart pills by healthy people. The big issue is: we need evidence in order to shed light on health and ethical issues, not gut feelings.
  • Pills are not the only technologies for cognitive enhancement. Education, nutrition (plain, correct nutrition, not necessarily vitamin or anti-radical integrators, which are often not proved to work), environment work as cognitive enhancers. But it is also the case certain technologies have been specifically developed for the enhancement of executive functions. They constitute a big industry, they are aimed at the elderly (as smart pills) but have been proposed as a mean for enhancing cognitive functions of young learners. The slogan is : train the brain. Does it work?Modest, positive effects have been demonstrated in the elderly, on attention. But the question is not whether playing games for brain training, as well as video games in general, makes people good at the tasks proposed by the training or the game. The question is: does this learning transfers to non-trained contexts and abilities? (Owen et al. 2010; Green & Bavelier, 2008)
  • “Here we present the results of a six-week online study in which 11,430 participants trained several times each week on cognitive tasks designed to improve reasoning, memory, planning, visuospatial skills and attention. Although improvements were observed in every one of the cognitive tasks that were trained, no evidence was found for transfer effects to untrained tasks, even when those tasks were cognitively closely related.” “Of 11,430 participants who met the inclusion criteria, 4,678 were randomly assigned to experimental group 1, 4,014 to experimental group 2 and 2,738 to the control group. Over six weeks, experimental group 1 completed an average of 28.39 (s.d. 5 19.86) training sessions, compared with 23.86 (15.66) in experimental group 2 and 18.66 (12.87) in the control group. All three groups were given the same four benchmarking tests (grammatical reasoning6, VSTM7,12, SWM8–10, PAL11,13), immediately after registering for the trial and again six weekslater, irrespective of how many training or control sessions they had chosen to complete in between. The benchmarking tests were adapted from publicly available cognitive assessment tools designed and validated at the Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (by A.H. and A.M.O) and made freely available at http://www.cambridgebrainsciences.com. During the six-week training period the first experimental group was trained on six reasoning, planning and problem-solving tasks, while the second experimental group was trained on six tests of memory, attention, visuospatial processing and mathematical calculations, similar to those commonly found in commercially available brain-training programs. In each ‘training’ session, the control group was asked five obscure knowledge questions from one of six general categories and were asked to place answers in correct chronological order using any available online resource.”
  • “Numerically, experimental group 1 improved on four benchmarking tests and experimental group 2 improved on three benchmarking tests (Fig. 1), with standardized effect sizes varying from small (for example, 0.35 (99% confidence interval (CI), 0.29–0.41)) to very small (for example, 0.01 (99% CI, 20.05–0.07)). However, the con- trol group also improved numerically on all four tests with similar effect sizes (Table 1). When the three groups were compared directly, effect sizes across all four benchmarking tests were very small (for example, 0.01 (99% CI, 20.05–0.07) to 0.22 (99% CI, 0.15–0.28)) (Table 2). In fact, for VSTM and PAL, the difference between bench- marking sessions was numerically greatest for the control group (Fig. 1, Table 1 and Table 2). These results suggest an equivalentand marginal test–retest practice effect in all groups across all four tasks (Table 1). In contrast, the improvement on the tests that were actually trained was convincing across all tasks for both experimental groups. For example, for the tasks practised by experimental group 1, differences were observed with large effect sizes of between 0.73 (99% CI, 0.68–0.79) and 1.63 (99% CI, 1.57–1.7) (Table 3 and Fig. 2). Using Cohen’s14 notion that 0.2 represents a small effect, 0.5 a medium effect and 0.8 a large effect, even the smallest of these improvements would be considered large. Similarly, for experimental group 2, large improvements were observed on all training tasks, with effect sizes of between 0.72 (99% CI, 0.67–0.78) and 0.97 (99% CI, 0.91–1.03) (Table 3 and Fig. 2). Numerically, the control group also improved in their ability to answer obscure knowledge questions, although the effect size was small (0.33 (99% CI, 0.26–0.4)) (Table 3 and Fig. 2). In all three groups, whether these improvements reflected the simple effects of task repetition (that is, practise), the adoption of new task strategies, or a combination of the two is unclear, but whatever the process effecting change, it did not generalize to the untrained bench- marking tests.”“the possibility that an even more extensive training regime may have eventually produced an effect cannot be excluded”
  • “Population bias is a constant concern; it is likely that individuals with some type of inherent talent and/or skill will flock to those activities that reward their particular skill set. For instance, individuals born with superior hand–eye coordination may be quite successful at some types of video games and thus preferentially tend to play these types of games, whereas individuals born with poor hand– eye coordination may tend to avoid playing games that require this skill. It is essential to demonstrate a definitive causative link between a given form of experience and any enhancement in skills by training non-experts on the experience in question and observing the effects of this training.”
  • (Green & Bavelier, 2008):“in each of the cases above, the causative link between action video game experience and enhanced performance was demonstrated through a training study in which non–game-playing individuals were specifically trained on an action video game, and the skill in question (e.g., attentional capacity) was assessed before and after training and compared with the performance of a control group that played a non–action game for the same period of time”.
  • (Green & Bavelier, 2008):“The effects of playing video games on perceptual and cognitive skills are particularly remarkable given the typical specificity of skill learning. Indeed, in the case of action video game training, the tasks used to measure the various perceptual, attentional, and visuomotor skills are quite a departure from the “training paradigm” (i.e., action video games). There are few obvious links between chasing monsters across a star-spotted “spacescape” and determining the orientation of a single black ‘T’ on a uniform gray background, or between driving a car through a crowded cityscape while shooting at rival vehicles and counting the number of white squares that are quickly flashed against a black background. Although one can certainly argue that individuals are making use of similar underlying processes in action video games and in the psychophysical tasks (rapid object identification for instance), this argument flies in the face of the great many articles demonstrating that no transfer is observed if something as seemingly minor as spatial frequency or orientation is changed. Along a continuum of task similarity, it seems natural to consider orientation discrimination around 45° as closer to orientation discrimination around 135° than to avoiding laser blasts from spaceships.However, it is not the case that action video game experience leads to enhancements in every perceptual, attentional, and/or visuomotor skill. Furthermore, it is essential to convey the fact that not all types of video games lead to similar effects. Our work and, to some extent, the majority of the literature, has focused specifically on the effect of action video games, that is, games that are fast paced and unpredictable, require effective monitoring of the entire screen, and necessitate that decisions be made extremely rapidly. Other game types, such as puzzle games, fantasy games, or role-playing games do not have similar effects (although they may influence other types of processing).”
  • (Boot et al. 2008):“Eleven expert video game players and ten non-video game players were recruited from the Urbana-Champaign community. Participants were considered experts if they played seven or more hours of video games per week for the past two years. Non-gamers were selected such that they played video games one hour a week or less.Eighty-two college students and members of the Urbana-Champaign community participated in the longitudinal portion of the study. To maximize the likelihood of observing improvements, all participants in the longitudinal groups were non-gamers and reported playing less than one hour of video games a week over the past 2 years.Participants in the longitudinal practice groups completed fifteen game sessions in the laboratory over a period of four to five weeks. The duration of thirteen of these game sessions were 1.5 h, but the duration of the first and last session was only 1 h (the remaining .5 h of those sessions were devoted to completing a portion of the cognitive battery described later. Participants assigned to the MOH and RON groups started game practice by com- pleting a game tutorial. Given the relative simplicity of Tetris, participants were given a brief explanation of the game but did not complete a tutorial. This schedule resulted in a total practice time of 21.5 h for each participant in each of the longitudinal gameParticipants in the control group played no video games, but were tested on all cognitive tests three times. The time between each testing session matched that of participants who were in the MOH, Tetris, or RON game groups.”Longitudinal participants (including the control group) completed a battery of cognitive tests three times : Visual and attentional task, Attentional blink, Enumeration, Multiple object tracking, Visual short-term memory, Spatial processing and spatial memory (Corsi block tapping), Mental rotation Executive control and reasoning (Taskswitching, Tower of London, Working memory operation span, Ravens matrices)
  • (Boot et al. 2008):“In a number of tasks, video game experts outperformed non-gamers. Experts were able to track objects moving at greater speeds, perform more accurately in a visual short-term memory test, switch between tasks more quickly, and make decisions about rotated objects more quickly and accurately. However, with the exception of Tetris, practicing video games for twenty-one h was not enough to engender benefits in non-video game players. Action or strategy game practice regimens did not significantly improve performance on any of the transfer tasks over and above improvement related to performing the transfer task multiple times (i.e. the control group).Interestingly, even tasks in which video game experience has been found to be beneficial in the past did not reveal significant video game effects, including the FFOV task, the attention blink task, and the enumeration blink task The fact that experts did not perform significantly better on these tasks as compared to non-gamers (although the expert data do indicate clear trends, see online data appendix) suggests that differences between our tasks and tasks used previously by other researchers may be playing an important role.”“Whereas it is difficult to pinpoint the exact reason for our reg- imens inability to produce significant improvements on these tasks, our results suggest that there exist important boundary conditions on the effectiveness of the use of video games to improve performance on other tasks. What may seem like inconsequential procedural and stimulus changes can significantly alter the degree to which video game experience transfers to other tasks. This raises concerns regarding whether video game practice may transfer, not only to laboratory tasks, but also to the complex and dynamic tasks we perform every day outside the laboratory. It is also unclear exactly how efficient video game interventions, with the purpose of improving perceptual and cognitive performance, may be in certain situations. It would be ideal to have data on how much video game experience is required to improve performance on a transfer task to a certain level as compared to how much practice on the a tual transfer task is required to reach the same level of performance. To our knowledge, the only evidence published in a journal of video game experience transferring to complex, real- world tasks has been the case of Space Fortress training improving the flight performance of Israeli air force pilots (Gopher et al., 1994).”
  • Three experiments were conducted. Twenty- four 4-year-olds participated in Exp. 1, 25 4-year-olds in Exp. 2, and 24 6-year-olds in Exp. 3. For each experiment, children were randomly divided into experimental (to-be-trained, n 12) and control (n 12, n 13 in Exp. 2 only) groups.The experimental group was treated the same in all three experiments. On the first day they received assays on attention (Child ANT), intelligence (Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, K- BIT) (16), and parent-reported temperament (Children’s Behavior Questionnaire, CBQ) (17), and then were given 5 days of training over a 2- to 3-week period. The Child ANT presents five fish in a horizontal row. The task was to respond to the center fish by pressing a key in the direction in which the fish pointed. On congruent trials, the flanking fish pointed in the same direction as the center fish, and on incongruent trials, the flanking fish pointed in the opposite direction. The conflict score was obtained by subtracting congruent from incongruent reaction times (RTs) (10). On the final day they received the same assays as on day 1, except that the temperament questionnaire was given to the caretaker to Exps. 1 and 2 differed only in the control group. In Exp. 1, the 12 control children came to the laboratory only twice: on day 1 for one assessment session and 2–3 weeks later for the second assess- ment session. In Exp. 2, the control group was brought in for five sessions over a 2- to 3-week period in which they watched popular children’s videos. The videos were used to control for the number of sessions involving child–adult interactions on the effect of training. Every 30 s to 1 min, the video paused and a sea horse appeared on the screen. The child was instructed to press a key to continue the video. Exp. 3 involved 6-year-olds. The experimental and control groups were treated exactly the same as in Exp. 2. Because 6-year-old children were somewhat faster than 4-year-olds in completing the training program, in Exp. 3 we included one more exercise to complete the five training sessions. Exp. 3 allowed us to examine differences in attentional efficiency between 4- and 6-year- olds and to compare this developmental change with the effects of training. We also collected cheek swabs from most of the 6-year- olds involved in the study to genotype the children for alleles of the dopamine transporter type 1 (DAT1) gene, which had previously been shown to be related to executive attention (6).Assessment sessions involved EEG recording during performance of the Child ANT. Forty of the 49 4-year-old participants and 23 of the 24 6-year-old participants agreed to wear the sensor net that allows acquiring EEG data.
  • (Swing, et al., 2010)“A sample of 1323 middle childhood participants were assessed during a 13-month period by parent- and child-reported television and video game exposure as well as teacher-reported attention problems. Another sample of 210 late adolescent/early adult participants provided self-reports of television exposure, video game exposure, and attention problems.Re- ports were collected from children, parents, and teachers at 4 points during a 13-month period (only 3 time points include all measures).Both samples completed similar mea- sures of television viewing and video game playing.26 Television exposure was based on the average time spent on weekdays during 4 time periods (6 AM to12PM,12PM to6PM,6PM to12AM, and 12 AM to 6 AM) and separately on weekends during those same 4 time periods. These questions were then re- peated for video game exposure. In the middle childhood sample, both par- ents and children completed these questions regarding the child’s weekly television and video game exposure.Attention problems were assessed in the childhood sample by teacher re- port. Teachers answered 3 items that measured attention problems in the classroom on a 5-point scale, with responses ranging from “never true” to “almost always true” (eg, “This child: has difficulty staying on task; has difficulty paying attention; often interrupts other children’s work.”).”
  • Miller & Robertson, 2010)Findings:1. Accuracy (number correct) Statistically significant gains in both groups. But the mean gain in the experimental group was approximately 50% greater than that of the control group. This difference was statistically significant.2. Speed of processing (time taken to complete number test) Statistically significant improvement in both groups. However, the mean improvement in the experimental group was more than twicethat of the control group. This difference was highly statistically significant.3. Self-concept No significant change in either maths self-concept or academic self-concept in either group. 4. Attitude to school • Slight – but statistically significant – improvement in attitude towards school in the experimental group, but not in controls 5. Analysis by previously recorded mathematical ability (general trends – more detailed analysis to follow) II terms of number correct, the less competent children tended to improve more than the more able children.IIn terms of speed, the majority of children in the middle of the ability range improved more than the children at the top and bottom 6. Gender:There were no significant gender differences.
  • Ep5

    1. 1. DA2, EP5<br />Evidence-based and science-informed choices in education: the case of technology<br />
    2. 2. Digital revolution? <br />
    3. 3. Digital natives?<br />Prensky, 2002<br />
    4. 4. Teaching machinesmore than audio-visual supports: interaction<br />(Skinner, 1954)<br />
    5. 5. Horizontal interaction<br />
    6. 6. Interaction with real contexts<br />
    7. 7. Interaction with simulations<br />
    8. 8. Playful interaction<br />
    9. 9. Interaction with different forms of digital information : access, presentation, creation<br />
    10. 10. Digital creation (programming) and literacy<br />
    11. 11. Is there a good way/bad way for introducing technologies in education? <br />
    12. 12. Is there a good way/bad way for using technologies in education? <br />
    13. 13. Cognitive enhancement in the light of scientific research and experimental evidence<br />
    14. 14. Should learners swallow smart pills? <br />Gazzaniga, 2005<br />Greely et al., 2009<br />
    15. 15. Should learners train their brain? <br />http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/video/d/drkawashimaintroductiontodrkawashimacasestudy.asp<br />
    16. 16. Brain training effects on cognition<br />(Owen et al. 2010)<br />
    17. 17. Brain training effects on cognition<br />(Owen et al. 2010)<br />
    18. 18. Problems with training products<br />(Green & Bavelier, 2008):<br />“remarkable specificity of learning. In other words, improvement is observed only in the trained task, with little to no transfer of learning being observed even for very similar untrained tasks”<br />“training tasks are often boring and unpleasant may decrease the probability of full compliance with the regimen, which in turn will negatively affect final result” <br />“improvement in performance is not always due to training-induced learning. Instead, changes in mood, level of motivation, or even desire to please the investigator can all lead to temporary improvements in performance, which without care in experimental design, can easily be mistaken for true learning effects”<br />
    19. 19. Experimental issues for training studies<br />(Green & Bavelier, 2008):<br />Establish the causal link<br />Include a control group that controls for test–retest, psychological and motivational effects (Hawthorne effect)<br />Establish the capacity of transfer<br />
    20. 20. Video games effects on attention<br />(Green & Bavelier, 2008):<br />Recent work indicates that action video game experience leads to enhanced performance on a number of tasks:<br />action game players outperform their peers on the multiple-object tracking task<br />useful field of view task, wherein participants must localize a quickly flashed target amongst a host of distracting objects <br />superior capabilities on the attentional blink task<br />skilled in action game playing can also resolve visual details in the context of tightly packed distractors, as in the crowding task<br />enhanced mental rotation abilities <br />Action video game experience has been shown to transfer to even high-level real-world tasks, such as piloting procedures (Gopher, Weil, & Bareket, 1994)<br />
    21. 21. Video games effects on attention<br />(Green & Bavelier, 2008):<br />Tested skills are slightly different from the skills that are trained by the video game<br />But it is not the case that action video games enhance every perceptual and attentional performance or that every video game enhances the same skills<br />
    22. 22. Video games: from experimental conditions to transfer<br />(Boot, et al., 2008)<br />Purpose of the study: <br />Establish effects of video game playing on several cognitive abilities (attention, mental rotation, memory, reasoning)<br />Examine the effect of game type<br />Participants either played a fast-paced action game, a slower-paced strategy game, or a puzzle game. <br />Cross-sectional groups (expert vs. non-gamers) + Longitudinal study (non gamers before and after trainingwith different types of video games compared to passive control group)<br />
    23. 23. Video games: from experimental conditions to transfer<br />(Boot, et al.,)<br />Results: different capacities in players and non-players <br />Players better at tracking objects, visual short memory, <br />No effect of 21 hours training on non players, even if training improves game skills<br />Not even on tasks in which video games experiences has been proved beneficial ex. By Green & Bavelier<br />Slight differences in tasks might play a role (no differences between gamers and non-gamers in tasks for which this trend seems to be proved)<br />This consideration is meaningful for transfer<br />
    24. 24. Video games effects on attention<br />(Rueda, et al., 2005)<br />Attention develops between 3 and 7 years of age under genetic control and possibly environmental influence<br />http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?article_id=218392700<br />
    25. 25. Video games effects on attention<br />(Swing, et al., 2010)<br />1323 middle childhood participants were assessed during a 13-month period by parent- and child-reported television and video game exposure as well as teacher-reported attention problems. Another sample of 210 late adolescent/early adult participants provided self-reports of television exposure, video game exposure, and attention problems.<br />
    26. 26. Dr Kawashima brain training: effects on learning<br />(Miller & Robertson, 2010)<br />Participants<br />32 schools • 4 local authorities • Complete data for 634 P6 children<br />Method<br />Randomisedcontrolled trial (stratified random sample) • <br />2 conditions:<br />Experimental group, who used the Nintendo half an hour a day, 5 days a week playing Dr. Kawashima’s brain training<br />A control group, where the teachers were asked not to change their normal routine<br />Treatment period 9 weeks <br />Data collected: pre and post measures of computation (accuracy and speed),various self-measures, (eg mathematics self-concept). <br />Findings<br />Statistical gains on accuracy and speed (both) with meangreatergain for experimentalgroup<br />
    27. 27. A case for science-informed evidence-based practices<br /><ul><li>Much more research is needed before recommending brain training and video games as effective for enhancing cognitive performances
    28. 28. Ethical issues should be deeply investigated</li></li></ul><li>Science-informed education<br />Bruer’s equation:<br />Cognitive science : education = biology : medicine<br />What works and why it works<br /> (Bruer, 1993) <br />
    29. 29. Science-informed education<br />Weshoudln’t trust our intuitions<br />Naïve epistemologicalbeliefs and intuitions canbe false<br />Memory<br />Vision<br />Rationalitybiases influence ourjudgment, ex.:<br />Overconfidence<br />Confirmation bias<br />Illusorycorrelation<br />Hindsightbias<br />(Nickerson, 1998)<br />
    30. 30. Evidence-based education<br />The integration of professional wisdom with the best available empirical evidence in making decisions about how to deliver instruction (US Department of education) <br />NCLB (No Child Left Behind, 2001)<br />Standard-based education reform<br />Teach to test problem<br />No revolution, yet<br />
    31. 31. Evidence-based education<br />Davies, 1999<br />Slavin, 2002<br />EducationalResearcher<br />What Works Clearinghouse<br />EIPEE Evidence-based Education Policy in Europe <br />Coalition for Evidence-Based Education<br />
    32. 32. Evidence-based medicine (EBM)<br />Evidence based medicine is the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. <br />The practice of evidence based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research. <br />By individual clinical expertise we mean the proficiency and judgment that individual clinicians acquire through clinical experience and clinical practice. Increased expertise is reflected in many ways, but especially in more effective and efficient diagnosis and in the more thoughtful identification and compassionate use of individual patients' predicaments, rights, and preferences in making clinical decisions about their care. <br />By best available external clinical evidence we mean clinically relevant research, often from the basic sciences of medicine, but especially from patient centered clinical research into the accuracy and precision of diagnostic tests (including the clinical examination), the power of prognostic markers, and the efficacy and safety of therapeutic, rehabilitative, and preventive regimens (Sackett et al., 1996)<br />
    33. 33. Evidence-based practice (EBP)<br />Preferential use of interventions that have been proven to have statistically significant effectiveness through systematic, empirical research<br />Gold rule: randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials<br />Meta-analyses & Systematic reviews of the literature<br />Help well-informed decisions<br />Sorts effective interventions from non-effective ones and in particular from <br />Quackery<br />Rule of thumb, customs & intuitions<br />Gut’s feelings & personal beliefs<br />http://www.acceleratedlearningmethods.com/doman-method.html<br />Cochrane Collaboration<br />Campbell Collaboration<br />RoyalSociety Science Policy center<br />
    34. 34. Translational medicine (TM)<br />“Translational research involves moving knowledge and discovery gained from the basic sciences to its application in clinical and community settings. This concept is often summarized by the phrases "bench-to-bedside" and "bedside-to-community" research.” (Institute of Translational Health Sciences)<br />Development of EBE = validate the clinical potential of biomedical research discoveries<br />Find solutions for increasing the efficiency of the process (Marincola,2003)<br />Speed the process (17 years) (Chumlea, 2008)<br />
    35. 35. Translational medicine (TM)<br />Two-way road (Marincola, 2003)<br />form bench to bedside = extract and validate interventions from novel discoveries<br />From bedside to bench = identify new hypotheses from direct human observation <br />Integrates research from basic sciences, social sciences, political sciences (Chumlea, 2008)<br />Translational research Awards <br />Journal of Translational Medicine, Translational research, Americal Journal of Translational Research<br />Science Translational Medicine<br />
    36. 36. Facilitate the way from the classroom to the lab<br />Feedback to researchers about the effects of the interventions<br />Suggestion to researchers of hypotheses based on direct observation in in-vivo situations<br />Facilitate the way from the lab to the classroom <br />Research that is motivated by the need of practical applications<br />Facilitations to the testing in in-vivo situations of interventions suggested by experimental models<br />Harvard Graduate School of education, Research Schools Program<br />Research Schools Will Directly Link Research and Practicehttp://www.gse.harvard.edu/news_events/features/2007/01/18_researchschools.html<br />Dean Mary Brabeck: Putting Clinical Findings to Work in the Classroom http://blogs.nyu.edu/blogs/ejf9434/steinhardtcommentaries/2008/06/dean_mary_brabeck_putting_clin.html<br />Translational education? <br />
    37. 37. Translational education? <br />Define the body of knowledge<br />Identify ethical issues<br />Promote Clearinghouses and Journals/Conferences<br />Promote research<br />Change the profession<br />New professions<br />New forms of training for educators<br />
    38. 38. Medicine-inspired education<br />Scientific research informs practice<br />Evidence-based practice<br />Translational practice<br />Which are the differences-similarities between medicine and education?<br />Aims<br />Actors<br />Providers<br />Users<br />Practices & Actions<br />Knowledge<br />Role in society<br />…<br />
    39. 39. Gut’s feelings (Marie Picard)/Limits of meta-analyses (Emmanuel Trouche-Raymond)<br />Social consequences of a-social education(Marie Picard, TimothéeBehra)<br /><ul><li>What’s working when it works?</li></ul>Novelty effect (Sarah Arnaud)<br />Additional time spent on blend conditions (AsmaAldashti)<br />Technology per se or how it is used by the teacher: motivation, … (AsmaAldashti)<br />What’s not working on the other side (Claire Pelofi)<br />Type of content (Muriel Perbet-Fayard, Emmanuel Trouche-Raymond)<br />Nature of the interaction – more or less active (IlariaGaudiello)<br />Evidence on power-point presentations (TimothéeBehra)<br />Accountability & validation (Muriel Perbet-Fayard)<br />How can we give the opportunity of internet away ? (SachaVorobyova) <br />
    40. 40. Nouri & Shahid, 2005 http://gpae.bryant.edu/~gpae/vol2/04-046%20The%20Effect%20of%20PowerPoint%20Presentations%20on%20Studen<br />Nouri & Shahid, 2008 http://www.aejournal.com/ojs/index.php/aej/article/viewFile/99/69<br />t%20Learning.pdf<br />Bartsch & Coben, 2003 https://apps.lis.illinois.edu/wiki/download/attachments/4366090/Effectiveness+of+Powerpoint+Presentations+in+Lectures.pdf<br />Bowman, 2011http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCG/is_2_36/ai_n32447969/<br />Cassady, J. C. (1998). Student and instructor perceptions of the efficiency of computer-aided lectures in undergraduate university courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19, 175-189.<br />
    41. 41. TimothéeBehra<br />La psychologie naïve dit que nous apprenons mieux lorsque quelqu'un nous explique quelque chose que lorsque nous travaillons par nous même. <br />Les résultats de la méta-étude semblent aller dans le sens inverse, même si les méthodes mixtes donnent un plus grand avantage que les méthodes purement "online". Il se peut que ce soit parce que quand nous sommes en classe, nous pouvons ne pas travailler, alors que c'est moins le cas lorsque nous sommes seuls face à notre ordinateur… à condition bien sûr que seuls les logiciels dédiés au travail soient accessibles.<br />Une des principales conclusion de cette méta-analyse est que nous n'avons pas suffisamment de données concernant l'apprentissage online pour la scolarisation primaire-secondaire (les K-12). C'est regrettable, car on peut penser que les résultats étudiés concernent des adultes déjà autonomes, et il serait intéressant de savoir si les jeunes enfants peuvent acquérir une telle autonomie de travail sans passer par un apprentissage classique.<br />D'après moi, les futures études sur ce sujet devraient également prendre en compte le milieu social des enfants. En effet on pourrait penser que les parents s'impliquent plus dans la scolarisation à domicile que dans la scolarisation à l'école, donnant ainsi un plus grand avantage aux familles aisées. <br />D'autre part, comme l'école est également un lieu de socialisation, il serait intéressant de voir l'impact de cette absence.<br />Sinon, plus généralement, l'arrivée de la technologie dans l'enseignement ne me ravis pas plus que ça. L'utilisation systématique des présentations powerpoint, notamment, ne me parait pas toujours augmenter la qualité des cours dispensés (mais il est vrai que le recopiage de ce qui est écrit au tableau n'a rien de réjouissant). Il y a ici aussi, sur la manière dont les cours sont dispensés, beaucoup d'études empiriques à réaliser.<br />
    42. 42. AsmaAldashti<br />“ The meta-analysis found that, on average, students in online learning conditions performed modestly better than those receiving face-to-face instruction” Surprise surprise!! For an instance, I found this result is quite striking. However, as I continued reading the rest of the report I found it literally supports my believes and predispositions toward the good teaching practices or strategies. <br />I enjoyed reading this article because in a way or another it highlights the concept of “Teachers as Leaders” that emerged recently in the field of educational Leadership out there in english speaking countries such as U.S, UK, Canada and Australia. Teachers’ roles have been changed dramatically as a consequence of the constant and overwhelming change in societies around the world. IT rapid development is indeed an influential factor that teachers must have the wit to deal with. Teaching is not a behaviorist’ territory anymore! It is not limited to Robert Gagne’ hierarchy of learning that identifies eight steps where students are guided step by step through a learning experience. For him, little pieces are explored before revealing hoe they interact. Translating learning theories into successful classroom practice requires a skillful blending of teaching techniques, content development and sensitivity. For more than 7 hours per day, teachers try to create an environment that is conductive to learning. Within any classroom, there is likely to be a range of interests and intellectual capabilities as well as a landscape of concept formation and attitudes and learning habits.For me it is not surprising that these Meta analysts noted that online learning and face-to-face blended conditions often included additional learning time and instructional elements not received by students in control conditions. Teachers know that children are innately interested in learning new things. They capitalize on their students expanding interests and growing cognitive abilities in different ways. For instance, they create learning situations through manipulative, games, calculators, computers and different technology <br />I do agree with the findings that these elements such as video, games, online quizzes and guide lines, media have the influence in students learning per se. But rather the art of implementing them by the teacher (and here I am talking about teaching k-12 only). <br />Moreover, I am, personally, skeptical and conservative about those studies about the legitimacy of Online Medical training?? I would never go to the doctor whom I know that he had received his diplomas by such training courses. I think that caution is required even more here!?<br />I missed  » not » in the forth Paragraph: <br />I do agree with the findings that these elements such as video, games, online quizzes and guide lines, media have not the influence in students learning per se. But rather the art of implementing them by the teacher (and here I am talking about teaching k-12 only).<br />
    43. 43. Sarah Arnaud<br />Il s’agit d’une méta-analyse réalisée par le ministère de l’éducation américain à partir de 46 études concernant la formation en ligne, qui compare différents types d’enseignements et évalue leur efficacité. Cette méta-analyse met en évidence les résultats suivants : les élèves et étudiants qui suivent un enseignement en ligne réussissent mieux que ceux qui suivent le même cours en face-à-face. Les résultats augmentent encore avec un enseignement mixte, c’est-à-dire associant apprentissage en ligne et en face-à-face. Les outils du Web permettraient d’adapter les besoins à chaque élève ou étudiant, et de les rendre plus actifs dans leurs apprentissages.<br />Ces résultats ne s’appliquent néanmoins qu’à l’enseignement au lycée et à l’enseignement supérieur. <br />Il faudrait pouvoir les appliquer aux jeunes enfants comme le préconise Timothée, et ne pas généraliser un système mixte à tout l’enseignement avant de l’avoir fait. <br />En effet, ces résultats ne sont-ils pas biaisés par l’aspect « nouveau » d’un tel apprentissage pour des élèves scolarisés depuis longtemps ? L’ennui que peut causer une habitude peut être à l’origine d’une moins grande motivation. Les élèves de lycée ayant des journées de cours très chargées depuis qu’ils ont trois ans, sont souvent lassés et fatigués, et leur concentration est rarement maintenue toute la journée. Or, l’outil informatique n’est pas encore associé au travail lorsqu’il est intégré dans le système scolaire, mais plutôt à des éléments ludiques et plus « divertissants ». Ainsi, si un système d’enseignement par apprentissage uniquement en ligne se généralisait, il deviendrait petit à petit la méthode traditionnelle, les ordinateurs seraient considérés comme des outils de travail, et une étude dans cinquante ans par exemple pourrait montrer que l’apprentissage face-à-face est plus efficace, parce que les élèves se trouveraient face à une situation nouvelle, dans laquelle une personne physique leur ferait cours, une interaction serait possible !<br />Cela semble justifier le besoin d’une étude complémentaire chez les plus jeunes : il faudrait comparer des méthodes d’apprentissage différentes chez des groupes d’enfants au tout début de leur scolarité, car ils ne se seraient pas encore « habitués » à une méthode d’enseignement. Ces résultats pourraient alors montrer quelle méthode pourrait être à long terme la plus efficace en termes d’apprentissage.<br />Intuitivement, la méthode « mixte » me parait être une bonne méthode en tant qu’elle pourrait permettre de maintenir une certaine concentration chez les élèves grâce au passage d’une méthode à l’autre. Il me semble qu’il est plus facile de travailler toute une journée lorsqu’on fait varier les méthodes et les contenus.<br />
    44. 44. Marie Picard<br />Les résultats de cette méta-analyse sont en effet frappants. Personnellement, je ne sais pas quel point de vue adopter face à des résultats susceptibles de faire émerger des perspectives éducationnelles différentes et impliquant les nouvelles technologies de façon massive. Enfin si c’est ce qu’il faut comprendre. Après la lecture, sentiment n°1 : « Dommage, on informatise tout ce qui bouge » Sentiment n°2 : « Est ce que j’en ai peur parce que cela représente un changement important ? Pourquoi pas en somme ? » <br />Je me méfie en effet de la faille dans laquelle il est facile de se glisser et de se cacher, c’est celle qui dit : garder les traditions, c’est mieux. Ca aussi c’est dangereux.<br />C’est pourquoi il ne me semble pas inintéressant de tester ce genre de méthode éducationnelle, ou en tout cas l’intégration de nouveaux outils. Manifestement, l’efficacité en est démontrée.<br />Néanmoins j’aimerais revenir sur des notions importantes et un peu mises de coté dans le contrôle de l’efficacité des nouveaux outils. Sur l’échantillon d’étudiants, on teste après entrainement : leur capacité d’apprentissage, ou en tout cas leur réussite dans une discipline. Qu’en est-il de leur intégration sociale, du regard critique porté sur le sujet, de leur acuité visuelle (écran en prolongé), de leur santé physique et mentale ?Mes tentations traditionalistes mises de côté, je ne parvient néanmoins pas à concevoir le quotidien des étudiants puisant leur enseignement sur informatique. La raison de cette rapide et meilleure efficacité n’est elle pas justement ce même l’objet d’inquiétude : c’est peut être l’abolition des interactions sociales dans le milieu scolaire qui augmente cette efficacité, car la distraction est moindre face à un écran, c’est certain. Dès lors cela n’est pas nécessairement positif.<br />C’est là qu’il faut philosopher sur la question : La fin justifie-t-elle les moyens ?<br />
    45. 45. Claire Pelofi<br />Le résultat de cette méta analyse ne me semble pas tant refléter l’avantage de l’apprentissage en ligne vs. l’apprentissage face à face, mais plutôt mettre en évidence les lacunes de l’apprentissage face à face. Mon intuition est, de même que le soulignait Timothée, qu’un apprentissage de type face à face sera toujours plus avantageux qu’un apprentissage sans interlocuteur direct. Ainsi, le fait que les résultats donnent l’avantage à l’apprentissage en ligne est plutôt révélateur de la médiocrité de l’enseignement auquel il est comparé.<br />Et en effet, les conditions de l’apprentissage face à face, telles qu’on les trouve dans les écoles à l’heure actuelle, ne sont pas du tout optimales : une seule personne, parfois sans expérience, en face de 25 ou 30 enfants de même pas dix ans. De même l’organisation en rangée de table, qui fait que ceux du fond ne bénéficie pas de la même qualité d’enseignement que ceux du devant etc.<br />Cela n’est qu’une intuition, il serait intéressant de mener des études ou la qualité de l’enseignement face à face serait variable (ex : un enseignant pour 10 enfants, vs. un enseignant pour 20 enfants, une organisation en rangé, vs. une organisation en rond) et ainsi voir de quelle façon l’efficacité de l’apprentissage face à face décroit. Ensuite, en prenant les conditions d’apprentissage face à face optimale, on pourrait les comparer à un apprentissage type en ligne. <br />Il est évident que dans ces considérations entre la question du coût de l’enseignement. Jusqu’à quel point peut-on investir d’argent dans une éducation efficace ? Mais réciproquement, l’enseignement en ligne est il une alternative satisfaisante au manque de moyens investit dans l’enseignement face à face ?<br />
    46. 46. Muriel Perbet-Fayard<br />S’interroger sur l’apport des enseignements en ligne est très intéressant, cependant la façon dont je vois la généralisation des apprentissages en ligne n’est pas très réjouissante.<br />Je suis d’accord que ce genre d’enseignement peu apporter un support de cours mais je crains, comme il a déjà été dit dans les posts précédents, qu’en généralisant les enseignements en ligne (sur internet à distance) on perde une dimension humaine énorme. <br />Comment font les élèves qui ont des questions ? Est-ce qu’il y a la possibilité d’avoir des réponses instantanées comme dans une salle de cours ? Avec peut être des milliers d’étudiants effectuant le même enseignement un suivit n’est-il pas encore plus difficile à mettre en place ?! Y a-t-il des liens maintenus avec une administration, un conseil pédagogique ? Où est le suivie car si cela profite a certain, les personnes en difficulté ne vont-elles pas se retrouver encore plus seules avec leur difficultés ? Bien que des groupes de travail peuvent être mis en place je crains que le sentiment de faire partie d’une classe, d’une promo ne disparaisse. Pour moi ce sentiment participe à l’apprentissage et à la collaboration entre étudiants et surtout à la sociabilisassions.<br />D’autre part, je crois comprendre que les effets positifs de l’apprentissage en ligne varient en fonction des enseignements (sujets de l’apprentissage). Ainsi je me demande, est ce que tous les enseignements se prêtent à un apprentissage en ligne ? Dans quelles mesures peut-on déterminer qu’un enseignement peut être appris en ligne ? Pour l’insertion de ce type d’apprentissage en primaire, collège (et lycée) comment dispenser un cours de sport en ligne (ce qui fait partie des programmes scolaires et des dispositifs contre l’obésité infantile) ?Si je comprends bien cette méta-analyse traite des enseignements en ligne = sur internet plus ou moins à distance. Ainsi je me demande s’il n’y a pas des problèmes de fiabilité des enseignements, n’importe qui peut proposer des enseignements à distances sur internet ?! Comment savoir qu’une université virtuelle est reconnue, que ce n’est une escroquerie ? Est-ce les diplômes ainsi obtenues vont être reconnu auprès des employeurs ??<br />Pour conclure, je dirais que pour moi l’utilisation des méthodes en ligne sont un complément des enseignements scolaires classiques. Je pense que la partie « théorique » de l’apprentissage doit se faire en classe avec un enseignant pouvant répondre aux questions. Je vois les méthodes en ligne comme un moyen de mettre en pratique la théorie, les concepts appris en classe, de proposer des exercices ainsi que des pistes de recherche autonome pour que les étudiants puissent aller chercher des informations seuls.<br />
    47. 47. Emmanuel Trouche-Raymond<br />Je crois qu’il est clair que la question des bénéfices et les inconvénients que l’on peut tirer d’un apprentissage « on-line » doit être évaluée. Mais que nous apporte cette méta-étude dans cette optique ? A mon avis , pas grand chose… En effet, il me semble que la bonne question n’est pas « l’apprentissage on-line est-il efficace? » mais plutôt lesquels le sont ?<br />On peut se réjouir d’apprendre qu’une méthode mixte est plus avantageuse mais peut-être pouvait-on s’en douter… Le problème d’un bon apprentissage me semble seulement déplacé , car les données les plus pertinentes, comme les différences entre les apprentissages ‘on-line’ plus fines que « être indépendant », ou « en groupe ».<br />De plus, je partage le constat fait par mes camarades sur les conditions actuelles d’enseignement mais je connais déjà les réponses à certaines interrogations : Oui moins d’élèves par classe favorise l’apprentissage.<br />Cependant tripler le nombre de professeur semble une solution si peu réaliste, que la bonne question devient : « Comment utiliser l’apprentissage on-line plutôt que que faut-il « en général utiliser l’apprentissage on-line ».<br />Du coup , quelques pistes de réflexion sur le sujet :-Les travaux de Rémi Brissiaud sur un logiciel permettant aux élèves de visualiser une division , avec une vrai réflexion sur la psychologie de l’apprentissage.-Pour faire face à l’hétérogénéité d’une classe une solution pourrait être de donner des exercices « on-line » à faire de telle sorte que les élèves les plus en difficultés y passe plus de temps, en passant plus de temps sur des étapes clefs. Méthode que permet le logiciel de R.Brissiaud. J’aurais préféré avoir une meta-étude plus fine, sur les apprentissages « on-line » seulement.Enfin, j’entend bien sur l’argument qui reproche à l’ordinateur un manque de social. Mais il me semble capital d’enseigner/ d’habituer les élèves aux bon usages sociaux d’internet, gestion de leur données privées, etc…<br />
    48. 48. IlariaGaudiello<br />This report makes me think about my little recent experiences.. I had during the last year both some experience of face-to-face and of on-line (asynchronous) teaching. In these experiences I could remark<br />- In on line learning, technology allows students to easily keep trace of the educational path. This prompts teachers to leave to the students this job of keeping trace and so the job of building a continuity in their formative procedures. This could make learners more autonomous in the best case, more lost in the worst case- In on line learning, contents of courses are prefixed and not so much negotiable between teachers and learners- In on line learning, the accent is more on homeworks as well made products- In on line learning, students are more likely to verify the reliability of the information- In on line learning students communicate among each other much more for technical problems than on learning content issues- In on line learning, some practices are, if not excluded, at least discouraged: for example, presentations to the class help students to simplify concepts in their head..in online learning students can help each other with immediate feedback on chat but it is difficult to exchange long, structured and coherent discourse like presentation- In face-to-face learning, technology is often included as a tool of search and communication- In face-to-face learning the sense is co-constructed during a lesson, the learning content can easily be negotiated between teachers and learners, the accent is more on understanding (then homeworks are more something that witness the understanding and the presence)- In face-to-face learning, teacher is a living generator of contextual examples (an aspect which is quite lost in online learning, above all in asynchronous learning)<br />Given the report we read and given some little personal experience, my general opinion is that tools are tools, that means: they have substantial effects on learning only if we do not master them (with substantial effects I essentially mean: understanding, memorizing, transferring). So I would not classify learning as online, face-to-face or mixed, but more as active, interactive, explanatory (a distinction which is mentioned in the report). I like this quotation of Philips who says <br />“We remember 10% of what we hear, 15% of what we see, 20% of what we hear and see, 60% of what we do, 80% of what we do with active reflection, and 90% of what we teach. » (Phillips 1984 in Mosley and Kline 2006)Pushing students to “teach” (e.g. to do presentation in front of the class) is something that is not so easy with online learning. So I still think there are some aspects of face-to-face learning (flexibility of the content with relation to the auditory, narrative of the lesson which allows the teacher to better convey his personal experience in a lesson, collective construction of meaning, possibility for students to teach etc.) that we miss in online learning. For this reason I would not support the substitution of face-to-face with on line. On the issue of mixed learning (face-to-face + online) I recognize that there are some useful aspects of online (accessibility to sources, possibility to compare methods, tools and content) which are worth to be taken into account when it comes to budget decisions. But first we should take care about people who can master these new form of learning.<br />
    49. 49. Vorobyova Sasha<br />This study is interesting because it questions the very fundamentals of 'traditional' face-to-face education that have been dominant in our society since Aristotle's academia. Whereas technology undoubtedly has its benefits in the sense of not having to travel to see your teacher, until this study (as far as I know), there were no truly proven benefits of online education- on the contrary, most peopleThe Internet has such a wide scope and variety of uses, that is is only logical that it be used for teaching purposes. And now, with the proof of its efficiency, it can be used with no impediment with students of all ages. Of course, the question still stands (as Timothée pointed out) of whether school-age children would have the same results. Even with mixed internet and face-to-face learning, using a computer for learning purposes requires a certain autonomy and self-sufficiency that younger children don't necessarily possess. Therefore, while computers can be used in classrooms and kindergardens with the presence of the pedagogues, I believe that until high-school (lycée) age, it would be too early to talk about autonomous computer learning.In conclusion, I think that mixed learning techniques are the key to a successful start of Internet and computer learning, and that many more studies should be done on specific aspects of the learning process and how they are affected by technology. Personally, my topic of focus for M2 will be machine-human interaction and dialogue and how it affects language learning in virtual environments- I think that this is a very promising and interesting direction in our world today.<br />