P600 Topic Seminar in
Learning, Cognition, and Instruction (LCI):
"Interactive Tools for Learning and
Collaboration" (3 Cr)
Fall 1999, Room 1210,
Fridays 8:00-10:45 Section 5688
Dr. Curtis J. Bonk, Educ:
Room 4022, (812) 856‑8353, CJBonk@Indiana.Edu
(see http://curtbonk.com/p600syl.html for
information on assignments)
Course Description:
The use
of computers as educational tutors, tools, and tutees was advocated nearly 2
decades 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. In addition, we will spend
significant time exploring how learning is impacted in distance education
environments; in particular, the Web.
For instance, we will discuss how to design research around computer
conferencing environments and analyze online learning discourse.
While I
value a student‑centered learning approach to technology integration, I
hope to provide a roadmap to some of the key human learning and development
principles underlying each of these technologies. We will use my edited book featuring research
performed on learner‑centered technologies right here at IU!
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. There are some optional final projects in the
course that may entail working on real world problems. To complete these projects, we will have free
access to various types of Web‑based courseware. In addition to project‑based learning,
this class will incorporate an assortment of lectures, demonstrations, videos, and
small and large group discussion activities.
Students will also be encouraged to demonstrate one technology tool or
prototype during the semester.
During
this class, I intend for students to begin to design unique tools and curricula
while discovering exciting conferences, campus resources, and technology
success stories. After the course,
students should be able to (1) appreciate the diverse application of learning
technologies, (2) design plans to use technology as a learning tool, (3)
understand that knowledge is not possession but access, and (4) perceive new
knowledge construction and peer collaboration
possibilities.
Required
Texts:
1. Bonk, C. J., & King, K. S. (1998). Electronic collaborators: Learner‑centered
technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse. 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.
3. Tim Koschmann (Ed.). (1996). CSCL: Theory and Practice of an
Emerging Paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Possible
Topics (this is not set in stone yet):
Week 1. Intro to Interactive Technologies for Learning and
Collaboration
Week 2. Linking Tools to Learner Centered Psychological
Principles
Week 3. More Tool Theory: Cognitive and Constructivistic.
Week 4. Still More Theory: Collab
Educational Learning Tools
Week 5. Writing Tools for Idea Generation & Cognition
Enhancement
Week 6. Multimedia Composition and Knowledge Construction
Week 7. Science Tools for Conducting Inquirys and Forming Lrng
Communities.
Week 8. Adventure on the Internet, Global Collab, Virtual Fieldtrips
Week 9. Computer Conferencing and Electronic
Apprenticeships
Week 10. Computer‑Mediated Communication Frameworks
and Analyses
Week 11. Distance Ed: Videoconferencing
Week 12. Distance Ed: Web Pegagogy
and Instruction
Week 13. Strategies for Network Interaction and
Collaboration
Week 14. Student Self‑Selection Week
Week 15. Reforming Schools and Instruction with New Tools
and Recap
This
course is only offered every 2‑3 years, so I would caution against
waiting.
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. Bonk, C. J., & King, K. S. (1998). Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered
technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse. 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.
3. Tim Koschmann (Ed.). (1996). CSCL: Theory
and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: 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 Info 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 (30 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
Research on Learning and Technology (CRLT) or at Wisdom Tools and you are
strongly encouraged to check this out.
Work at the CRLT may substitute for both tasks
"C" and "D." See
your instructor or Tom Duffy at the CRLT 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.
A. Software evaluation forms (e.g., for Journal of
Computing in Education).
B. Research (e.g., for Virtual Learning Environments
Inc (VRLI))
C. Business Ideas/plans.
=================================================
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: Poss influences on
context, purposes, content, & methods.