P600
Topic Seminar in Learning, Cognition, and Instruction (LCI):
"Interactive
Tools for Learning and Collaboration" (3 Cr)
Fall 1997, Room 3115,
Mondays 1:00-3:45, Section 5508
Dr. Curtis Jay Bonk, Educ:
Room 4022, (812) 856-8353, CJBonk@Indiana.Edu
Course Description: The use of
computers as educational tutors, tools, and tutees was advocated over a decade
ago by Robert Taylor. While these three
metaphors continue to promote innovative ideas about technological bridges to
human learning, in this seminar, the notion of the computer as an educational
learning tool and collaborative device will be prominent. We will consider how a range of collaborative educational learning tools
(e.g., conferencing tools, hypermedia, groupware, microworlds,
electronic databases and knowledge building mechanisms, notecards and planning
aids, idea processors, scientific computer probes, and animation and graphical
aids) can accomplish differing learning goals.
Though I advocate a student-centered learning approach, I hope to
provide a roadmap to some of the key human learning and development principles
underlying each of these technologies.
Clearly, this course will be applicable to students interested in teaching
or conducting research with computer tools. While we wrestle with cognitive,
instructional, and sociocultural theory issues, we shall ground this discussion
with researchable questions, actual tool development dilemmas, and school
implementation possibilities. As such,
this class will incorporate an assortment of lectures, demonstrations, videos,
and small and large group discussion activities. During this class, I hope you will begin to
design unique tools and curricula while discovering exciting conferences,
campus resources, and technology success stories. After the course, you should be able to:
appreciate the diverse application of learning technologies, design plans to
use technology as a learning tool, understand that knowledge is not possession
but access, and perceive new knowledge construction and peer collaboration
prospects.
Required Texts:
1. Tim Koschmann (Ed.). (1996). CSCL:
Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Course Book of Readings: A copy will be in the education
library.
Optional Texts:
1. Susan Lajoie & Sharon
Derry (Eds.). (1993). Computers as Cognitive
Tools. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
2. Vosniadou et
al. (Eds.), (1996). Int'l Perspectives on the Design of
Tech-Supported Lrng Envir's. Erlbaum.
============================================================
Tentative Tasks and Grading:
30 pts/15% A. Weekly Attendance and Class Participation
(15%)
60 pts/30% B. Weekly Mentoring & Collaboration with
Undergrads (Due Dec. 8th; Must participate 1-2 each week)
40 pts/20% C. Definitions and Taxonomy of Cognitive Tools
and Sociomedia (Due Nov 10th)
70 pts/35% D. Major Project: Eight Options (Due:
Final due Dec. 8th)
200 Total
Points
We will use
a point system for each project, evenly dividing points among aspects of each
assignment. Total points will determine
your final grade. I will use the
following grading scale:
A+ = high score B- = 160-164 points
A = 185-200 points C+ = 153-159 points
A- = 180-184 points C = 145-152 points
B+ = 174-179 points C- = 140-144 points
B = 166-173 points F/incomplete = no work rec'd or signif. inadequate/impaired
Projected
Seminar Weekly Topics:
Week 1. (Sept. 1st) Introduction to Interactive Technologies for Learning and
Collaboration
a. Q: What is a tool?
b. Do: Review syllabus and
expectations.
c.
Guest: Sonny Kirkley, CEE.
Week 2. (Sept. 8th) Linking Tools to Learner Centered Psychological Principles
a. Q: Why is the psychology of learning
important here?
b.
Do: Video on Learner-Centered Principles and Technology.
Week 3. (Sept. 15th) More Tool Theory: Cognitive and Constructivistic.
a. Q: What is learner centered design? What is constructivistic
design?
Week 4. (Sept. 22nd) Still More Theory: Collaborative Educational Learning Tools
a. Q: Why are the effects of
electronic collaboration?
Week 5. (Sept. 29th) Writing Tools for Idea Generation and Cognition Enhancement
a.
Q: What tools do you use to write or compose?
b.
Q: What is a knowledge tool? What are
knowledge skills?
c.
Do: Demo some writing tools.
Week 6. (Oct. 6th) Multimedia Composition and Knowledge Construction
a. Q: What is a knowledge
tool? What are knowledge skills?
Week 7. (Oct. 13th) Adventure on the Internet, Global Collaboration, and Virtual
Fieldtrips
a.
Q: Why is info access so important? Can
we teach "search" skills?
b.
Do: Video on Turner Adventure Learning.
Week 8. (Oct. 20th) Computer Conferencing and Electronic Apprenticeships
a.
Q: How do you communicate? How about in
5 yrs or 5 yrs ago?
c.
Do: Demo COW, Alta Vista, FirstClass, and Allaire Forums.
Week 9. (Oct. 27th) Computer-Mediated Communication Frameworks and Analyses
a.
Q: How can electronic conferencing data be analyzed?
Week 10. (Nov. 3rd) The Internet, World Wide Web, Videoconferencing, and Other
Information Systems
a.
Q: How soon will videoconferencing and web-based technology merge?
b.
Do: Video of the Knowledge Navigator, AT&T Tape, others.
Week 11. (Nov. 10th) Science Tools for Collaboration in a Learning Community
a.
Q: What are the teacher and student roles in a learning community?
Week 12. (Nov. 17th) Science Tools for Conducting Inquiry
a.
Q: Why have kids conduct inquiry? Any
research questions here?
b. Do: Debate utility of tools and
future trends.
Week 13. (Nov. 24th) Strategies for Network Interaction and Collaboration
a. Q: What are the strategies
for electronic interaction?
b.
Guest: Nancy Schwartz, CEE.
Week 14. (Dec. 1st) Student Self-Selection Week
a. Q: What did we miss?
b. Do: Student discussion and
presentation of self-selections.
Week 15. (Dec. 8th) Reforming Schools with New Tools and Recap
a.
Q: What's next? What inventions are
still needed?
b.
Q: Ok, did we learn anything here? What
specifically?
c. Do: Student continue to discuss and present self-selections.
Class Tasks:
A. Weekly Attendance and Participation. (15%--30 points = 15 points for attendance; 15 pts for partic.)
Besides
reading 3 of the 4 assigned articles each week, during the semester I want you
to read 3 of the tidbits in your packet as well as 7-10 additional articles
related to this class including the self-selection articles for Week 14. Because unique activities will be
incorporated into each class, it is your responsibility to experience
them. A combination of readings, verbal
and written reactions to ideas, observing demonstration videos, and hands-on
activities will be critical to your growth as a class. Participation
is encouraged at all times.
B. Weekly Electronic Mentoring of Undergraduates (25%--50 points)
Throughout
the semester, my web-based undergraduate educational psychology class will be
attempting to create "Smarter Schools," while reading a book on this
topic. During this project, they will
electronically work in small groups of 4-6 members representing different
majors. Each week these groups will
accomplish one or more activities which lead them to their final presentations
at the end of the semester. You will be
assigned to one of these groups as an electronic mentor, advisor, and
teacher. As a mentor, you will assist in
the learning process of this group by posing questions, instructing the group,
offering praise and feedback, providing task advice, pushing them to explore
more resources, giving personal examples and stories, prompting them to
articulate and elaborate on their ideas, and generally encouraging group
dialogue. These discussions will take
place on the World Wide Web (WWW) using two different software tools: (1) Alta
Vista, and (2) Conferencing on the Web (COW).
In this way, you will learn firsthand about the possibilities and
pitfalls of software tools for learning and collaboration. Naturally, you will receive some instruction
in the use of these tools. You will be
expected to interact with your group at least twice per week and turn in your
printouts of your mentoring and collaboration logs on December 8th along
with a 1-2 page single spaced reflection of what you learned and experienced
during this task. Grading will be based
on a six part scale: (1) Insight; (2) Helpfulness; (3) Team Builder; (4) Pushes
Group; (5) Diverse Feedback; and (6) Reflective. You will also be expected to attend the final
undergraduate presentations and give them feedback on Saturday December 13th
from 9:00-1:30.
Weekly Electronic Mentoring of Undergraduates Criteria (60 Points):
1.
Insightful: offering analogies/examples, relationships drawn, interlinkages, connecting weekly
ideas.
2. Helpfulness/Responsive:
prompt, encouraging, informative, numerous suggestions, advice, quick fdbk.
3. Team
Builder: links group members, there for your group, group sage/teacher, not
idea squelcher.
4. Pushes
Group: moves group to new heights, exploration is fostered, breadth &
depth, fosters growth.
5. Diverse
Feedback: many forms of learning assistance, response specific to activity and
need.
6.
Reflective: self-awareness and learning displayed in reflection, coherent and
informative reflection.
(Note: We could also create a newsgroup or
listserv to discuss articles for this class if the class so chooses.)
C. Definitions and Taxonomy of Cognitive Tools and Sociomedia (20%--40 points)
How do these
readings fit together? I want you to
begin to indicate--through a visual representation--just what you have
internalized by depicting the cognitive and sociomedia
tools in your field of study. Maximum
visual representation size is a folded 11 X 17 sheet of paper. First, lay out some important terms here
(perhaps 20-30 words) and provide broad tool-related definitions. Second, link these terms into common
categories that relate to particular weekly discussions or important
concepts. Above these categories you
might provide a listing a learner-centered psychological and design principles,
while attempting to create an overarching taxonomy of the tools in your
field. Third, I want you to verbally
describe what this visual representation of broad tool definitions, categories,
and principles represents. Please summarize
and interpret your visual display in a 2-3 page single-spaced paper. In effect, there are three key indicators of
learning here: (1) definitional; (2) visual; and (3) verbal interpretation. This
is due Nov. 10th. (Examples from previous years may be available.)
D. Major Project: Eight Options (40%--80 points)
With the
eight options listed below, you have a chance to experiment with or observe the
uses of technology tools in schools and nontraditional learning environments,
propose a totally unique software tool, or provide help to your peers. We will discuss these briefly during the
final class period. You have a choice of
the following: (1) Naturalistic Study; (2) Research Intervention; (3)
Research/Grant Proposal; (4) Tool Design Proposal; (5) Curriculum Integration
Proposal; (6) Research Presentation; (7) Educational Tool Demonstration; (8)
Usable Class Product. A joint pilot
research project with a fellow student or faculty member is a possibility. CAUTION: For option #1 or #2, you may need
human subjects approval before proceeding. The
project is to be completed by December 8th.
Summary of Eight Major Project Options:
(Note: Many of the research ideas below can be
completed with work at the Center for Excellence in Education (CEE) and you are
strongly encouraged to check this out.
Work at the CEE may substitute for both tasks
"C" and "D." See
your instructor or Sonny Kirkley at the CEE for
details.)
1. Naturalistic Study: You might perform
a case study or pilot observation of workers/students using collaborative tools
or collaborative tool interaction in a school, workplace, or informal learning
setting. For instance, you might decide
to complete a case study of a young person or adult using a
collaboration or learning tool for the first time; including at least
five careful observations and commentary of the person and tutor/teacher. The commentary should reflect your learning
and provide insights as to how to make this tool more educationally
meaningful. If you are looking at
student-teacher-tool interaction patterns, teacher guidance, or simply tool
use, you will need to design coding schemes and observation log sheets to help
interpret tool functionality in this environment (see p. 6 for details).
2. Research Intervention: In Option #2, you
might want to try to use and analyze a specific task, tool, or theory. Based on your interests and existing theory,
you should form specific research questions before your intervention. Though your study can take many forms, the
research report you submit should detail the purpose and framework of the
intervention (i.e., why was this particular project chosen), include a
literature review, method section, a description of what occurred (were you successful?), explanation of the results, and
possibilities for extending this study (see p. 6 details).
3. Research/Grant Proposal: Option #3 can be
either a grant or research proposal. In
this option, students must write a paper on a possible study of the use of new
collaboration or learning technologies which: (1) extends/modifies the
research, or (2) suggests a totally unique but reasonable research
project/study. It may be either a
quantitative intervention or qualitative study. It should include a(n):
introduction, brief review of the important literature, methods section (e.g.,
hypotheses, subjects, materials/resources, variables, procedure, instruments,
and anticipated analyses), and discussion of expected results (including the
meaning and relationship to the field).
Your proposal can be within any aspect of technology tools for impacting
learning and thinking. You may target
any age group or population (see p. 6 details).
4. Tool Design Proposal: Choose Option #4
if you would you like to design a unique collaborative educational learning
tool or at least propose the design of a unique educational tool, instructional
design model, or unique curriculum application of an existing tool. Instructional design does not need to include
any programming. However, it must
clearly indicate: (a) the purpose (e.g., the skills addressed); (b) how it
might be implemented; (c) the advantages of using this tool, theory, or
application to accomplish your educational goals; (d) possible grant sources
for programming or design; (e) a mock-up sample of design documents; and (f)
description of applicable learner centered design principles.
5. Curriculum Integration Proposal: Here you might contemplate the
curriculum impact of one or more learning tools. How are you going to use it? What would change? What training would there be needed for
successful use? How might faculty,
students, administrators, and parents react to all this? Include a description of tool, how it could
or should be used in traditional or nontraditional learning, and what you
believe to be its strengths and weaknesses.
6. Research Presentation: Again, in the spirit of an interactive
seminar, the purpose of this option is to allow for student input and also
provide practice in presenting information in the style required for
conferences. Here, you are to orally
present a research proposal or synthesize aspects of the research or readings
for the class wherein you point out a new direction that researchers or
teachers might want to head. Presenters
should meet with me prior to the presentation in order to discuss the topic and
proposed organization of the presentation.
Given time constraints, the presentation length will be no longer than
20-25 minutes (see p. 6 details).
7. Educational Tool Demonstration: You might want to demonstrate a
learning or collaboration software tool that is promoted for an
educational setting such as a library, corporate training center, computer lab,
museum, zoo, classroom, or learning center.
See the instructor about the possibilities of demonstrating a
particularly interesting tool you have found.
8. Usable Class Product: Students choosing
Option #8 will create or perform a meaningful activity for the class. For example, you might summarize the learning
principles embedded in all the articles we read this semester, locate the 10-20
most popular collaborative educational learning tools (CELT) for public
schools, uniquely categorize the tools studied, summarize the weekly articles
read, or create a database summarize major themes and trends in a technology or
psychology journal for a 3-5 year period.
Your final report, however, will be your own design as there is no
preconceived format.
=================================================
Sample Grading of Major Project (70 Total Points or 10 pts each dimension):
1. Review of
the Problem/Lit/Purpose (interesting, relevant, current, organized,
thorough, grounded)
2. Hypothesis/Research Questions/Intentions (clear,
related to class and theory, current, extend field)
3. Method/Procedures (subjects/age groups approp, materials relevant, timeline sufficient, controls)
4. Research
Activity/Design/Topic/Tool (clear, doable/practical, detailed, important,
implications, future)
5. Overall Richness of Ideas (richness of information,
elaboration, originality, unique)
6. Overall Coherence (unity, organization, logical
sequence, synthesis, style, accurate)
7. Overall Completeness (adequate info presented,
explicit, relevant, precise, valid pts)
Some
Sample Final Project Formats
Sample Format Option #1 or #2. Naturalistic/Research Activities: (8-16 pages)
I. Title Page (Name, affiliation, topic title, acknowledgements)
II. Topic Literature and Method (7-14 pages)
1. Res topic
& materials; 2. Brief stmt of problem and why impt (1-2 pages)
3. Brief review
of the relevant literature (3-4 pages)
4. Methods: (2-6
pages)
a. Subjects & design (i.e., who/how selected); 2.
Materials/setting (i.e., hard/software, text)
c.
Procedure (i.e., how data was obtained)
d. Coding Schemes & Dep. meas/instr (i.e., how segment/code data); e. Analyses or
comparisons
III. Results and Discussion 1. Preliminary Results; 2. Discussion of
results (4-8 pages)
IV. References (APA style: see syllabus for example)
V. Appendices (e.g., pictures, charts, figures, models, tests, scoring criteria,
coding procedures)
Sample Format for Option #3 or #4. Inquiry or Tool Design Grant
Proposal: (14-20 pages)
I. Title Page (Name, affiliation, topic title, acknowledgements)
II.
Review of the Literature (6-12 pages)
1. Intro to Tool or Problem (purpose, history, importance) (1 page)
2. Review of Relevant Lit (contrast related tools and relevant
literature on the topic) (6-9 pages)
3. Stmt of Design Questions or Hypoth (what do you expect to occur) (1 page)
III. Method Section (3-7 pages)
1. Tool Design (i.e., common features) or Subjects (i.e., sample, who
and how assigned to groups)
2. Tool Configuration (i.e., requirements) Or Setting (i.e., hardware,
software, text, models, figures)
3. Tool Options (e.g., windows, linkage features) or Dependent
measures/instruments (i.e., tests)
4. Tool Development Process (i.e., timeline) or Procedure (i.e.,
training);
5. Other (e.g., related tools) or Other (e.g.,
coding, other materials);
6. Pilot Tests, Anticipated Analyses or Comparisons
IV. Results and Discussion (OPTIONAL) 1. Antic/dummied results; 2. Disc. of results
V. References (APA style: see syllabus for example)
VI. Appendices (e.g., pictures, charts, figures, models, tests, scoring criteria,
coding procedures)
Sample Format for Option #6. Research Presentation (20-25 minutes)
I. Title of Topic
II.
Purpose or Rationale for Study or Product
1. Current dilemma in field,
confusion, or need
III. Review of Existing
Literature
1. Intro to Topic/Problem (purpose, history, importance)
2. Review of Lit (contrast relevant literature on the topic)
3. Stmt of Hypoth/Res
Q's (what do you expect to occur)
IV. Method Section
1. Subjects and design (i.e., sample, who and how assigned to groups)
2. Materials/setting (i.e., hardware, software, text, models, figures)
3. Dependent measures/instruments (i.e., tests)
4. Procedure (i.e., training); 5. Other (i.e., coding, other materials);
6. Exp analyses or
comparisons
IV. Results and Discussion (OPTIONAL) 1. Antic/dummied results; 2. Disc. of results
V. Visuals (e.g., pictures, charts, figures, models, tests, scoring criteria,
coding procedures)
Weekly Reading (typically we will read 3 of 4; sometimes 3 of 5
articles; T = Tidbit)
Week 1. (Sept. 1st) Introduction to
Interactive Technologies for Learning and Collaboration
Week 2. (Sept. 8th) Linking Tools to
Learner Centered Psychological Principles
1. CSCL: (1996). Preface
and Chapter 1 by Koschmann. Paradigm shifts and instructional technology.
2. CSCL: (1996). Chapter
2 by Feltovich, Spiro, Coulson, & Feltovich. Collab within and among minds.
3. CSCL: (1996). Chapter
4 by Koschmann, Kelson, Feltovich, & Barrows. Computer-supported
PBL.
4. Crook, C. (1994). Computers in
education: Some issues. In Computers and the collab exper of learning.
5.
Salomon, G. (1990). Cognitive effects with and of computer
technology. Communication
Research.
T1. Soloway, Kuzdial, & Hay (1994). Learner-centered design:
The challenge for the 21st century.
T2. Wagner
& McCombs. (1995). Learner-centered psych principles in practice:
Designs for dist educ.
Week 3. (Sept. 15th) More Tool Theory:
Cognitive and Constructivistic.
1. Collins, A. (1996). Design issues
for learning environments.
2.
Brown, J. S. (1985). Process versus product: A perspective on tools for
communal & informal elect lrng
3. Kozma, R. B. (1987). The implications of
cognitive psychology for computer-based learning tools.
4. Knuth
& Cunningham (1991). Tools for constructivism. In Duffy et al. (Eds.)
Design envir for cons lrng.
5.
Scott, Cole, Engel (1992). Computers and Educ: A
Cultural Constructivist Perspective.
T1. Papert, S. (1996). A word for learning. In Kafai
& Resnick (Eds.), Constructivism in practice.
T2. Papert, S. (1993). Ch 1: Yearners and schoolers. In the Children's Machine.
Week 4. (Sept. 22nd) Still More
Theory: Collaborative Educational Learning Tools
1. Bonk & Cunningham (in press)
Searching for lrnr-cent, construct, & sociocult comp of collab lrng tools.
2. Blumenfeld,
Marx, Soloway, & Krajcik
(1996). Learning with peers: From small grp coop. to collab com.
3. Harasim,
L. (1990). Online education: An envir for
collaboration and intellectual amplification.
4. Adelson & Jordan (1992). The need for negotiating in
coop work
T1. Schrage (1990). Shared Minds. Ch 8: Collaborative tools: A first look
Week 5. (Sept. 29th) Writing Tools for
Idea Generation and Cognition Enhancement
1. CSCL: (1996). Chapter
6 by Neuwirth & Wojahn.
Learning to write: Computer support for a coop
process.
2. Reynolds & Bonk (1996).
(ETR&D) Creating computerized writing partner and keystroke mapping tools
3. Salomon, G. (1993). On the nature
of pedag computer tools: The case of the Writing
partner
4. Bonk et al. (1996). The social and cognitive transformation of workplace writing
environments.
T1.
Kellogg, R. T. (1989). Idea processors: Computer aids for planning and
composing text.
T2. Smith
(1996). Thomas Jefferson's computer.
T3. Schorr,
J. (1994). Smart think: Eight programs that help you think creatively and
plan. Macworld.
Week 6. (Oct. 6th) Multimedia
Composition and Knowledge Construction
1. CSCL: (1996). Chapter
10 by Scardamalia & Bereiter. Computer sup for
knowledge-bldg communities.
2. Bonk, Hay,
& Fischler. (1996). Five
key resources for an elect community of elem weather
forecasters.
3.
Lehrer, R. (1993). Authors of knowledge: Patterns of hypermedia design
4. Landow, G. (1993). Bootstrapping hypertext: Student-created
docs, Intermedia, & the soc
cons of know
Week 7. (Oct. 13th) Adventure on the
Internet, Global Collaboration, and Virtual Fieldtrips
1. CSCL: (1996). Chapter
8 by Riel. Cross-classroom
collaboration: Communication and Education.
2. Siegel, M. A. & Kirkley, S. E. (in press). Adventure
learning as a vision of the digital lrng environment.
3. Bonk & Sugar (in press).
Student role play in the World Forum: Analyses of an Arctic lrng
apprenticeship.
4. Songer,
N. (in press). Can technology bring students closer to science?
T1. Steger,
W. (1996). Dispatches from the Arctic Ocean. National Geographic.
T2. The
Globe Program. (1995).
Week 8. (Oct. 20th) Computer
Conferencing and Electronic Apprenticeships
1. Ann
Brown et al. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom.
2. Teles,
L. (1993). Cognitive apprenticeship on global networks
3. Bonk, Hansen, Grabner,
Lazar, & Mirabelli (in press). Time to
"Connect": Syn & asyn
case-base dialogue.
4. Riel & Harasim
(1994). Research perspectives on network learning.
T1. Edutopia. (1994).
Newsletter of the George Lucas Educational Foundation.
Week 9. (Oct. 27th) Computer-Mediated
Communication Frameworks and Analyses
1. Kuehn (1994). Computer-mediated
communication in instructional settings: A research agenda.
2. Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis.
3. Slatin, J. M. (1992). Is there a class in this text:
Creating know in an elect classroom
4. Levin, Kim, & Riel (1990). Analyzing instructional interactions on electronic message
networks.
5. Finholt,
Sproull, & Kiesler
(1990). Communication and performance in ad hoc task groups.
Week 10. (Nov. 3rd) The Internet, World
Wide Web, Videoconferencing, and Other Information Systems
1. Owston,
R. D. (1997). The World Wide Web: A technology to enhance teaching and
learning.
2. Bonk, Appelman,
& Hay. (1996). Elect conferencing tools for student
apprenticeship & perspective taking.
3. Fetterman,
D. (1996). Videoconferencing on-line: Enhancing communication over the
Internet.
4. Egido,
C. (1990). Teleconferencing as a technology to support
cooperative work.
T1. Mergendoller (1996). Moving from technological possibility to richer student learning.
Week 11. (Nov. 10th) Science Tools for
Collaboration in a Learning Community
1. CSCL: (1996). Chapter
7 by Pea. Seeing what we build
together: Distrib multimedia envir's
for trans com.
2. CSCL: (1996). Chapter
11 by Soloway et al. Tech support for tchrs transitioning to proj-based
sci pract.
3. Schauble,
Raghavan, Glaser. (1993). The
disc & reflec notation: A graph trace for support
self-reg
4. Edelson,
Pea, & Gomez. (1996). Constructivism in the collaboratory.
T1.
Rubin, A. (1993). Video laboratories: Tools for scientific investigation.
T2.
Grant, W. C. (1993). Wireless coyote: A computer-supported field trip.
Week 12. (Nov. 17th) Science Tools for
Conducting Inquiry
1. CSCL: (1996). Chapter
3 by Goldman. Mediating
microworlds: Collab on high
school science activities.
2. CSCL: (1996). Chapter
9 by Rochelle. Learning by collab: Convergent conceptual change.
3. Goldman et al. (1996). Anchoring science instruction in multimedia environments.
4. Nelson, Watson, Ching, & Barrow (1996). The effect of
teacher scaffolding and student compreh. mon.
T1. Lee
& Kazlauskas (1995). The Ecole Moderne: Another
perspective on educational technology.
Week 13. (Nov. 24th) Strategies for
Network Interaction and Collaboration
1. Harasim,
Hiltz, Teles, & Turoff (1995). Designs for learning networks (Chapter 4 and
Appendix A)
2. Sproull
& Kiesler (1993). Computers,
networks, & work.
3. Bonk & Reynolds (1997). Lrnr-centered web instr for
higher-order thinking, teamwork, & apprenticeship.
4. Wolfe, R. (1990). Hypertextual
perspectives on educ computer conferencing.
T1. Pogrow, S.
(1990). A Socratic approach to using computers with
at-risk students.
Week 14. (Dec. 1st) Student
Self-Selection Week
Week 15. (Dec. 8th) Reforming Schools
with New Tools and Recap
1. CSCL: (1996). Chapter
5 by Morrison & Goldberg. New
actors, new connections: The role of local infra.
2. CSCL: (1996). Chapter
12 by Kolodner & Guzdial. The effects with & of CSCL: Track lrng in a new par.
3. Lamon
et al. (1996). Schools for thought.
4. Means & Olson. (1994).
Tomorrow's schools: Technology and reform in partnership.
T1. Mehlinger,
H. (1996). School reform in the information age.
T2. Dede, C. (1989). Workstation 2005: A few minutes of
occupational educ in year 2005.
T3. Nickerson, R. S.
(1988). Tech in ed: Possible
influences on context, purposes, content, & methods.