Contributions to a Computer-Based Theory of Strategies

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Contributions to a Computer-Based Theory of Strategies file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Contributions to a Computer-Based Theory of Strategies book. Happy reading Contributions to a Computer-Based Theory of Strategies Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Contributions to a Computer-Based Theory of Strategies at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Contributions to a Computer-Based Theory of Strategies Pocket Guide.

Planning should include strategies like; how learners will receive feedback, how they will take part in assessing their learning and how they will be helped to make further progress to ensure that learners understand the goals they are pursuing and the criteria that will be applied in assessing their work alternative assessment. This will enable learners to impart knowledge and skills compatible to their understanding ability.

This structure also reflects also the age of learners for example preschool children can start at the age of years the time where their is rapid language development. Teachers of this level do so to meet this objective. Constructivism is a theory of knowledge with roots in philosophy, and psychology. The founders of this theory are : Vygotsky, Brunner and John Dewey , they believe that 1 knowledge is not passively received but actively built up by the cognizing subject; 2 the function of cognition is adaptive and serves the organization of the experiential world.

In other words, "learning involves constructing one's own knowledge from one's own experiences.

Review ARTICLE

Meaning that humans generate knowledge and meaning from an interaction between their experiences and their ideas i. Hawkins said that knowledge is actively constructed by learners through interaction with physical phenomenon and interpersonal exchanges. Mathew said that constructivist teaching and constructivist learning are Oxymoronic terms meaning that they are two terms which goes together but they are controversial to each other. In constructivist teaching the teacher is required to enact agendas from outside the classroom that is it has to be of societal imperative but intended to enrich the curriculum at classroom level.

Bell describes four forms of constructivist relationship between teacher and student these are;. Power of: This is also a traditional approach of instruction where the teacher ignores learning opportunities in the course of teaching but students are told to take note of them to be explored post learning process.

Power for: This is a democratic approach of teaching where the learner is freer to explore physical environment so as to solve some problems and create new knowledge. Power with: This is a democratic approach of teaching where learners have high opportunity in the course of learning. It was contended that, constructivist teaching scheme has five phases which are:. The theory has far-reaching consequences for cognitive development and learning as well as for the practice of teaching in schools.

Professional development should consider the important of using learners experience in teaching and learning process. By experiencing the successful completion of challenging tasks, learners gain confidence and motivation to embark on more complex challenges Vygotsky call it as zone of proximal development ZPD Vygotsky, Teachers should encourage and accept student autonomy and initiative. They should try to use raw data and primary sources, in addition to manipulative, interactive, and physical materials. So that students are put in situations that might challenge their previous conceptions and that will create contradictions that will encourage discussion among them.

In our teaching therefore we need to use some activities which originate from our environment so that learning can be meaningful to students. So that students can construct their own meaning when learning Hawkins Ashcraft, contends that, information processing is a cognitive process which attempts to explain how the mind functions in the learning process. With this theory more emphasis is on how the information is processed than, how learning happens. The theory has three basic components which are;.

This is a stage, where the learner receives the information through senses and stores it in a short tem memory. At this point the information stays for only a fraction of a second; this is because this region is continuously bombarded by information which tends to replace the first information Shunk, The information registered at SR is then shunted to the short term memory, where its storage at this region is facilitated by process called chunking and rehearsal.

Information here stays for not more than twenty seconds. If chunking and rehearsing does not occur within 20 seconds then the information will lapse. This region has an ability of storing seven plus or minus two units of information. In order for the information to be available in a long term memory it must be transferred from short term memory to long term memory by a process called encoding. At this point the new knowledge is related to the prior knowledge stored in long term memory resulting into persistence and meaningful learning by a process called spreading activation.

Mental structures called schema are involved in storage, organization and aiding of retrieval of information. Met cognition is an awareness of structures and the process involved Bigus, These are procedural knowledge and declarative. Where it is known that procedural knowledge needs more emphasis and time than declarative knowledge.

Learning theories and online learning

The founder of the theory is Albert Bandura who used the term social learning or observational learning to describe this theory of learning. Learning can be due to incidental social interaction and observation. Learning occurs through imitational and modeling while one observes others. The behavior of the teacher has more influence to learners because learner will imitate the behavior of the teacher regardless of whether is good or bad Omari, Learning which lead to acquiring personal emotional and satisfaction e.

Teacher must plan teaching materials which help student to develop individual skills and unlearn what is not good which was learned some time ago e. Teacher use educational learning theories in solving some psychological problem for their students like using punishment, psychology of learning help instructor in deciding the nature of learning and how to achieve it when planning for teaching and learning process. To sum up the discussion it can be said, that learning theories are of great importance to teachers in implementing their responsibilities. In Tanzania education system behaviorism and cognitivsim are the theories which are much applied by educational stakeholders this is manifested in the way teachers teach and the way assessment is conducted.

For example in assessment teachers and other examination boards set examinations aiming to measure understanding in cognitive domain leaving behind affective and psychomotor domains. Aggarwal, J. Essentials of Educational Psychology: 6th Edition. Ary, D. Introduction to Research in Education. Atherton, J. Chunk, D.

Learning Theories : An Educational Perspective. Pearson Education, Inc. Evans, L. What is Teacher Development?

1 Introduction

Koda, G. Effectiveness of teachers resource centres. PHD Thesis. Dar es salaam, University of Dar es salaam. Omari, I.

Why an understanding of theories of learning is important

Educational psychology for teachers. Schunk, D. Self-efficacy and education and instruction. Maddux Ed. Vol 3 pp. Tyler, R. Basic principles of curriculum and instruction : Chicago: University of Chicago press. Vygotsky, L.


  1. Understanding Voice over IP Security (Artech House Telecommunications Library)!
  2. Never Mind the Laptops: Kids, Computers, and the Transformation of Learning.
  3. China Marches West: The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia!

Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. WiseGeek, What is a Profession? Learning Theories. Add to cart. Contents 1 Introduction 2 Learning theories 2. Ary, Jacobs, and Sorensen give characteristics of a theory which among others include: - A theory should be able to explain observable factors relating to a particular problem. Piaget put forward some ideas relating on his study; - Assimilation: The process by which a person takes material into their mind from the environment, which may mean changing the evidence of their senses to make it fit - Accomodation: The difference made to one's mind or concepts by the process of assimilation.

Note that assimilation and accommodation go together: you can't have one without the other - Conservation: The realization that objects or sets of objects stay the same even when they are changed about or made to look different.

Computer assisted instruction - New World Encyclopedia

Given these varying findings, establishing that administration mode leads to similar performance remains an important issue to investigate. It is important to understand student acceptance of computer-based testing because the test-taking experience is substantially different from paper-based exams [ 19 ]. In paper-based exams with multiple-choice questions, several questions are usually presented per page, and students have the complete exam at their disposal throughout the time allotted to complete the exam.

Common test-taking strategies for multiple-choice exams include making notes, marking key words in specific questions, and eliminating answer categories [ 20 , 21 ]. In computer-based multiple-choice exams however, standard software may not offer these functionalities. For an example where these functionalities were included see McNulty et al. A study by Hochlehnert et al. Deutsch et al. The context in which students take a mock-exam however, is very different to the actual environment of a formal high-stakes exam.

Therefore it is important to investigate both the test-taking experience and student acceptance of computer-based exams in a high-stakes exam. The university opened an exam facility in to allow proctored high-stakes exams to be administered via the computer. Of these exams, were multiple-choice exams, were essay question exams, 58 were a mix of both formats, and 11 exams were in a different format.

Within the broad project to implement computer-based exams, an additional collaboration of faculties started a pilot project to facilitate computer-based exams through the Questionmark Perception QMP software www. Of the multiple-choice exams administered over the two-year period, 62 were administered via QMP and 40 were administered via Blackboard. Nevertheless, the program of psychology had no previous experience with computer-based examining. The psychology program is a face to face based program in contrast to distance learning.

However, for the course that was included in the present study, attending lectures was not mandatory, and students had the option to complete the course based on self-study alone, given that they showed up for the midterm and final exam. To evaluate student performance in different exam modes and acceptance of computer-based exams, computer-based examining was implemented in a Biopsychology course, which is part of the undergraduate psychology program.

Assessment of the Biopsychology course consisted of two exams receiving equal weight in grading, and were both high stakes proctored exams. Since the computer-based exam facilities could not facilitate the whole group of students, half of the students were randomly assigned to make the midterm exam by computer, and the other half of the students were assigned to make the final exam by computer. Students were explicitly given the possibility to opt-out of taking a conventional paper-and-pencil exam and take both exams via computer, and no students approached us with this request.

Navigation menu

Had students approached us with this request however, they would have been granted permission if the capacity of the computer-based exam facilities would have allowed it. In order to examine whether there were mode differences in student performance on both exams, we analyzed student performance. Student performance data is collected by the University of Groningen for academic purposes. Since the analysis of student grades presented in this study entails comparing summary measures of student grades for particular exam mode, no registered identifiable information is presented.

Therefore, written informed consent for the use of student grades for scientific research purposes was not obtained. In order to examine student acceptance of computer-based exams, a questionnaire was placed on the exam desks of students, which they could voluntarily fill out, with the knowledge that their response to the evaluation questionnaire could be used for scientific purposes. Furthermore, students were notified of this procedure at the onset of the course. We did not ask students for written informed consent as to whether they were willing to fill out the questionnaire since they were able to choose to fill out the questionnaire voluntarily and anonymously.

Since students were aware that their responses would be used for scientific purposes, informed consent was implied when students chose to fill out the questionnaire. In the psychology program, this was the first time a computer-based exam was implemented. The total assessment of the course in biopsychology consisted of a midterm and final exam, which both contributed equally to the final grade, were high-stakes, and took place in a proctored exam hall.

Subsequently the mode of examining was switched for the final exam, so that everyone was assigned to take either the midterm or the final exam as a computer-based test. After completing the computer-based exam, students were invited to fill-out a paper-and-pencil questionnaire on their experience with the computer-based exam, which they could submit before leaving the exam hall.

Students received immediate feedback on their performance on the exam in the computer-based condition number of questions correct , and thus knew their performance on the exam when completing the questionnaire. Students in the paper-based condition received the exam result within a couple of days after taking the exam. At the start of the course, students were enrolled for the course via the digital learning environment, and were randomly assigned to make the midterm exam via paper-based mode or computer-based mode. If a student was assigned to complete the midterm on paper, the final exam would be completed by computer and vice versa.

As can be expected in a field experiment, however, there was both some attrition and non-compliance which we will discuss below.

Fig 1 shows the number of eligible participants who were randomly assigned, and the subsequent attrition and non-compliance. There were three sources of attrition: 1 not registering for the exams, 2 registering but not showing up at the midterm, and 3 completing the midterm but not showing up for the final exam.

Therefore, we conclude that it is unlikely that attrition affected the randomization in this field-experiment. There were 16 students who declined taking a computer-based exam at all, and completed both the midterm and final exam on paper. In addition, there was a technical failure at the midterm exam, as a result of which 36 students needed to switch to a paper-based exam in order to be able to complete the exam. Both the midterm and final exam contained 40 multiple-choice questions with four answer categories.

The exams measured knowledge of different topics in biopsychology. The material that was tested on the midterm exam, was not tested again in the final exam. Thus the two exams covered different material included in the course and each exam had an equal weight in determining the final grade. The midterm exam appeared to be somewhat more difficult mean item proportion correct equal to. Item-total correlations were somewhat higher for the computer-based exam compared to the paper-based exam mean 0. Student performance in both modes was investigated by comparing the mean number of questions correct on each exam.

Student acceptance was operationalized in three ways see Table 2. First, students answered questions about their test-taking experience during the computer-based exam and in paper-based exams in general. Second, students were asked whether they preferred a computer-based exam, paper-based exam or did not have a preference. Thirdly, students were asked whether they changed their opinion about computer-based exams as a result of taking a computer-based exam. The midterm computer-based exam was administered through the Questionmark software, but as mentioned above, there was a technical problem.

As a result of the change in interface, the design and layout of the computer-based midterm and final exam was slightly different. The midterm exam, administered through QMP, was designed so that all questions were presented simultaneously with a scrolling bar for navigation.

In the final exam, administered via Nestor, the questions were presented one at a time and navigation through the exam was done via a separate window with question numbers allowing students to review and change answers given to other questions. For both exams, therefore, students had the opportunity to go back and change their answers at any point and as many times as they liked before submitting their final result. After submitting their final answers to both the midterm and final exam in the computer-based mode, students immediately received an indication of how many questions they answered correctly.

For the paper-based mode of examining, students took a list of their recorded answers home, and could calculate an indication of how many questions they answered correctly several days after the exam when the answer key was made available in the digital learning environment. One reviewer suggested that it would be better to use nonparametric statistics to analyze our results because we analyze Likert-scale data. However, parametric statistical approaches are perfectly applicable to Likert scale data [ 24 ].

Statistical tests are not based on individual rating scores but on sample means and these means have sampling distributions close to normal. In many cases it is even better to use parametric methods because their base rate power is much higher than nonparametric methods. Table 3 shows that there was no significant difference in the mean-number of questions answered correctly between the computer-based and paper-based mode for both the midterm and final exam. In Fig 2 the mean scores on the questions with respect to test taking experiences for the midterm and final exam are provided.

A multivariate ANOVA was conducted to examine whether these questions were evaluated differently for the midterm and final exam. Additional Bonferroni corrected univariate analyses showed that students were less able to concentrate in the midterm computer-based exam compared to the final exam. See S1 Table for more details on the means, standard-deviations, and effect sizes of this analysis. Table 4 shows that students are more positive in terms of their ability to work in a structured manner, monitor their progress, and concentrate during paper-based exams compared to the computer-based exam, with medium 0.

Since there were technical difficulties during the midterm exam, the change in opinion towards computer-based exams may have differed for the midterm and final exam. In line with recent research [ 12 , 13 , 14 ], we found no difference in the mean number of questions correct between computer- and paper-based tests for both the midterm and final exam. Earlier findings in the field of higher education in favor of paper-based tests [ 10 ], and in favor of computer-based tests [ 11 ], were not replicated in this study.

Based on these findings, we can conclude that recent findings show that exam-mode may not cause differential student performance in higher education. An important explanation for this finding could be the population of students in this study. Students in this study entered the higher education system largely directly after completing secondary education and represent a generation that has grown up with technology. Therefore, the lack of a difference in performance between modes in the present study may be the result of a generational difference in student population compared to older studies.

This also implies that current studies with older populations of students may still find a mode effect, although adults today will have had more technology exposure in daily life than studies conducted with adults twenty years ago. Students generally indicated that the test-taking experience in PBE in general was more favorable compared to CBE in terms of their ability to work in a structured manner, have a good overview of their progress through the exam, and their ability to concentrate.

While there was no difference in performance for computer-based and paper-based exams, these findings suggest that students appear to feel less in control when taking a computer-based exam relative to a paper-based exam. This is in line with previous findings by Hochlehnert et al. Further research is necessary to see if this difference in approach to taking the exam may be an artefact of the first-time introduction to computer-based exams.

Students who regularly take computer-based exams may be more accustomed to this mode, and therefore have developed confidence in their approach to taking computer-based exams. Another avenue that may be pursued in order to better understand the test-taking experience in CBE may be to extend the research of Noyes, Garland and Robbins [ 25 ] who found that students experienced a higher cognitive load in a short computer-based multiple-choice test compared to an equivalent paper-based test.

Further research could investigate the extent to which the perceived test-taking experience is related to cognitive load. We found that students who took the final exam by computer, were able to concentrate better on average than students who took the midterm exam by computer. The first possible explanation for this result, may be the technical problem during the midterm.

Students in the computer-based exam hall who did not experience the technical problem, may have been affected indirectly by the unrest in the exam hall as the directly affected students were provided with a paper-based exam. If this were the explanation for the difference in concentration between the midterm and final exam, it would seem logical that students who completed the midterm exam were also more negative about computer-based exams compared to the group of students who completed the final exam by computer.

We found no difference however, in the extent to which student opinions became more negative towards CBE after taking the computer-based exam. Another possible explanation for the difference in the ability to concentrate between the midterm and final exam is the design of the computer-based assessment. A difference in design was noted by Rickets and Wilks [ 17 ] to explain improved student performance in CBE when the design was changed from scrolling to a one-question-at-a-time presentation design.

In the present study all the questions were displayed simultaneously in the midterm file, while in the final exam questions were presented one at a time. In presenting questions one at a time during the final exam students may have been able to focus better on the questions at hand, explaining the greater ability to concentrate reported by students.

Interesting is why students prefer a particular exam mode, and whether the experience of taking a computer-based exam can make a difference for the acceptance of computer-based exams.

Cooperative Learning Model: Strategies & Examples

Earlier research by Hochlehnert et al. Furthermore, Deutsch et al. While the present study used a somewhat different operationalization than the Deutsch et al. Another reason why students may have become more positive in their opinion about computer based testing is that they received immediate feedback on their exam performance.

makukusesa.tk

Learning Theories. Their Influence on Teaching Methods

This could be particularly relevant for students completing the final exam by computer, since receiving the result immediately would allow students to calculate whether they passed the course as a whole, while students in the midterm would not have had this opportunity since both exams need to have been completed in order to determine whether the course was passed. Nevertheless, more research is needed to understand why some students remain negative, or become more negative towards CBE after taking a computer-based test. Based on the above discussion there are several practical implications for Universities seeking to implement CBE.

Student performance on multiple choice question exams does not appear to vary across test mode. The benefits of CBE, and the lack of negative consequences, can both be used in the communication towards students prior to the first implementation of CBE in order to maximize acceptance.

Furthermore, universities need to invest in good CBE exam facilities. This includes investing in adding more test-taking functionalities so that students test-taking experience may be as optimal as possible. Furthermore, the potential of technical failure is a risk that requires good protocols so that students are able to complete the exam either on a different computer or on paper. The full potential of computer-based tests can be realized in further developments. One option is to use computer adaptive testing CAT. The advantage of CAT is that items are chosen from an item pool that best fit the level of the candidate.

In many higher education institutes however, this is difficult to realize as a very large item pool with regular refreshment is needed. In combination with the extensive psychometric knowledge necessary for this development, this is generally beyond the scope of many university courses. What may be easier to realize however, is to offer test items to students in random order, which helps prevent cheating. There were several limitations to the present study. First, there were technical problems during the midterm computer-based exam.

As a result of this technical failure a number of students had to complete the planned CBE on paper. This remains a risk for computer-based exams in general, and the facilities for computer-based examining need to be organized in such a way that when this occurs unexpectedly in practice, hindrance for students is minimized.

In the present study, students were allowed extra time to complete the exam, although no one made use of it. It is important to note, that while students may not have a good test-taking experience, their results are unlikely to suffer as a consequence. Several studies have shown student performance in CBE is not affected by technical issues [ 26 , 27 ]. An important aspect of introducing computer-based assessment deserves mention as well, namely the teacher of faculty perspective.

Since the present study was conducted in a single course, the teacher perspective was outside the scope of the present study. Research into teacher acceptance and willingness to implement computer-based assessment may also provide relevant insight into improving the implementation of computer-based exams in higher education. A population containing more mature aged students may view technology differently. In addition students were studying face to face. Students who study via distance mode may view computer-based testing differently than face-to-face students. This study found that students performed equally well in computer-based multiple-choice exams compared to paper-based exams.

While paper-based exams may be the norm in many universities, investing in computer-based exams may be beneficial for the younger generation who are more and more growing up with computer and digital technologies. Further research is necessary into the optimal design of computer-based exams, such that student-acceptance is maximized and not an irrelevant source of stress during exams in a high-stakes context.

Thanks to Berry Wijers, course coordinator of biopsychology for being the first teacher in the Psychology program to implement computer-based testing and provide the platform for this study to take place. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. PLoS One. Published online Dec 7. Anja J. Meijer , 1 Casper J. Albers , 1 Yta Beetsma , 2 and Roel J.

admin