i-manager Publications

i-manager's Journal on School Educational Technology (JSCH)

Current Issue Vol. 19 Issue 2

ChatGPT as an Empowering Catalyst: Unveiling the Impact on Political Awareness and Civic Education
Demand for Private Coaching: Stakeholder's Perspective and Consequences
Revisiting Flipped Class Model Effectiveness on Learning Performance: A Meta-Analysis of Meta Analyses
Unlocking Learning Potential: An Experimental Study on the Impact of TPACK-Enhanced Flipped Learning in Mathematics Education
Effectiveness of Flipped Classroom (FC) Model in Learning Economics Subject: A Quasi-Experimental Study

Most Cited

Volume 7 Issue 3 December - February 2012

Article

Cross Curricular Connections: An Innovative Model for Curriculum Transaction

H.G. Jeya Harish* , R.Krishna Kumar, B. William Dharma Raja*

PhD Scholar & Principal, Coimbatore Public School, Coimbatore

Professor of Education, Annamalai University, Chidambaram

Assistant Professsor of Education, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli

Harish,H.G.J., Krishnakumar,R. and Dharmaraja,B.W. (2012). Cross Curricular Connections: An Innovative Model ForCurriculum Transaction.i-manager’s Journal on School Education Technology, 7(3), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.7.3.1668

Abstract

Students want to discuss each and everything related to the subject as well as the personal matters with their teacher. This shows that they trust their teachers so much than anyone else. So it is the duty of the teacher to teach the subject with more and more concrete examples and connections with the day to day life. They should connect the subject with all disciplines so that rather than opening the new memory location the information will store on the location which was already created on the brain. In the light of the above discussion researcher (authors) decided to carry out a research (article) on Cross Curricular Connections. Cross Curricular Connections to science instruction can result in rich and meaningful experience for students. The article that follows describes Cross-Curricular or interdisciplinary connections and their values to learners. Then, it lists specific considerations a Science teacher, or any other teacher, should consider before setting aside instructional time to make Cross Curricular Connections.

References

[1]. Anderson, R.C., Hiebert, E., Scott, J., & Wilkinson, I.A.G. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers : The report of the Commission on Reading, Washington, D.C. : The National Institute of Education

[2]. Heibert, E.H. (1994). “Becoming literate through authentic tasks: Evidence and adaptations. “In R. Ruddell & M.R. Ruddell (ed.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed.,) Network, DE : International Reading Association

[3]. Hartman, D., & Hartman, J. (1993). “Reading across texts : Expanding the role of the reader. “ The Reading teacher, 47 (3), 202-211.

[4]. Willis, S. (1995). “Refocusing the curriculam : Making interdisciplinary efforts work.” ASCD Education Update, 37 (1), 1-8).

[5]. Cooper, J.D. (1993). Literacy : Helping children construct meaning (2nd ed.) Boston : Houghton Mifflin Company.

[6]. Fredericks, A., Meinbach, A., & Rothlein, L. (1993). Thematic units : An integrated approach to teaching science and social studies. New York : Harper Collins.

[7]. Fielding, L& Pearson, P.D. (1994). “Reading comprehension : What works.” Educational Leadership, 51(5), 62-68

[8]. Paris, S., Calfee, R. Filby, N., Hiebert, E., Pearson, P.D., Valencia, S., & Wolf, K. (1992). “A framework for authentic literacy assessment”. The Reading teacher, 46 (2), 88-98.

[9]. Saskatchewan Education. (2001). Classroom curriculum connections : A teacher's handbook for personal professional growth. Regina : SK : Government of Saskatchewan.

[10]. Saskatchewan Ministry of Education. (2008). Renewed objectives for the common essential learnings or critical and creative thinking (CCT) and personal andsocial development (PSD). Regina SK : Saskatchewan Ministry of Education.

[11]. National Academy of Sciences. (2010). A frame for science education: Preliminary Public draft. Retrieved on July 16, 2010 from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ bose/Standards_Framework_Preliminary_Public_Draft.pdf

[12]. Park Rogers, M.A., & Abell, S.K. (2007). Connecting with other disciplines. Science and children, 44 (6), 58-59.

[13]. Jacobs (1989). Values and Benefit of Interdisciplinary / cross curricular teaching.

[14]. Fogarty, (1991).; pappas, Kiefer, & Levstik, 1990) ; ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational leadership , 49(2), 61-65.

[15]. Marzano, (1991). Perkins, 1991) of Interdisciplinary / cross curricular teaching.

[16]. Sizer, T. (1989). Diverse practice, shared ideas: The essential school. In H. Walberg & R. Lane (Eds.), Organizing,for learning: Toward the 2Ist century. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

[17]. Reutzel, D., & Cooter, R. (1991). "Organizing for effective instruction: The reading workshop." The Reading Teacher, 44 (8), 548-555.

[18]. Applebee, A.N., Langer, J.A., & Mullis, I.V. (1989). Crossroads in American education: A summary of findings: Educational Testing Service. Princeton, NJ.

[19]. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowledge, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

[20]. Thaiss, C. (1986). Language across the curriculum in the elementary grades. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and the National Council for the Teaching of English

[21]. Perkins, D.N. (1991). Educating for insight. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 4-8

[22]. Bateson, Gregory (1980). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. Toronto: Bantam Books

[23]. Thaiss, C. (1986). Language across the curriculum in the elementary grades. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and the National Council for the Teaching of English.

[24]. Perkins. (1989). Integrating thinking and learning skills across the curriculum. In Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and Implementation.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Using Prezi to Motivate Middle School Science Students

Caroline Bender* , Prince Bull**

M.A., North Carolina Central University.

Associate Professor, Educational Technology, North Carolina Central University

Bender, C., and Bull, P.H . (2012). Using Prezi To Motivate Middle School Science Students.i-manager’s Journal on School Education Technology, 7(3), 10-21. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.7.3.1669

Abstract

This study examined the effects of the use of a non-linear multimedia presentation model, Prezi, on middle school students’ attitude toward learning science, engagement in school science, and the impact on learning science. Prezi was used as the primary instructional model for an intensive six-week intervention period in seventh grade science classrooms. A total of 28 students, from two science classes, participated in the study. Each student completed a pre- and post-survey to determine attitudes and beliefs about learning science and also completed two surveys at the end of the intervention to determine the effectiveness of Prezi as an instructional tool. Findings indicate small improvements in both students’ attitudes and beliefs about learning science in general. However, results do show that Prezi is effective as a learning tool because it engages students in learning, helps students retain information, and for its ease and style of design and presentation. Results also indicated that Prezi was, most notably, effective in informing students about science topics, presenting information in an understandable way, and that Prezi would be an effective learning tool if used in other courses.

References

[1]. Appleton, J.J., Christenson, S.L., and Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 369-386.

[2]. Archer, L., Dewitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2010). “Doing” science versus “being” a scientist: Examining 10/11-year-old schoolchildren's constructions of science through the lens of identity. Science Education, 94, 617-639. .

[3]. Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.

[4]. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2003). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

[5]. Bull, P. (2009). Cognitive Constructivist Theory of Multimedia Design: A Theoretical Analysis of Instructional Design for Multimedia Learning. In G. Siemens & C. Fulford (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2009 (pp. 735-740). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

[6]. Bull, P. (2010). Spatial Constructivist Thinking Theory: A Framework To Address Needs of Digital Visual Learners. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2010 (pp. 1297-1302). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

[7]. Bull, P. H. (2012). Using Spatial Constructivist Thinking Theory to Enhance Classroom Instruction for Students with Special Needs. In Aitken, J. E., Fairley, J. P., & Carlson, J. K. (Eds.), Communication Technology for Students in Special Education and Gifted Programs. (pp. 66-81). doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-878-1.ch005.

[8]. Chen, C., & Howard, B. (2010). Effect of live simulation on middle school students' attitudes and learning toward science. Educational Technology, 13(1), 133-139.

[9]. Dix, K. (2005). Are learning technologies making a difference? A longitudinal perspective of attitudes. International Education Journal, 5(5), 15-28.

[10]. Fraser, B. (1981). Test of science-related attitudes. Victoria: Radford House.

[11]. Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., Friedel, j., and Paris, A. (2005). School Engagement. In K.A. Moore and .Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to flourish?: conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.

[12]. Fredericks, J., McCloskey, W., Mell, J., Montrosse, B., Mordica, J., & Mooney, K. (2011). Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: a Bandura, A. (1977) description of 21 instruments. Institute of Education Science. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved January 21, 2012 from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southeast/pdf/REL_ 2011098.pdf.

[13]. Gagne, R., Briggs, L. & Wagner, W. (1992).Principles of instructional design. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

[14]. Haven, B., & Vital S. (2008). Measuring Engagement: Four Steps To Making Engagement Measurement a Reality. Forrester Research, Inc. Retrieved January 20, 2012 from http://www.adobe.com/engagement/pdfs/ measuring_engagement.pdf.

[15]. Hernandez-Ramos, P., & De La Paz, S. (2009). Learning history in middle school by designing multimedia in a project-based learning experience. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 151-173.

[16]. Hsieh, P., Cho, Y., Liu, M., & Schallert, D. (2008). Examining the interplay between middle school students' achievement goals and self-efficacy in a technologyenhanced learning environment. American Secondary Education, 36(3), 33-50.

[17]. Ioannou, A., Brown, S., Hannafin, R., & Boyer, M. (2009). Can multimedia make kids care about social studies? The globaled problem-based learning simulation. Computers in the Schools, 26, 63-81.

[18]. Liao, Y. C. (1999). Effects of hypermedia on students' achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8, 255-277.

[19]. Liu, M. (2005). The effect of a hypermedia learning environment on middle school students' motivation,attitude, and science knowledge. Computers in Schools, 22(3/4), 159-171.

[20]. Malcolm, C. & Keane, M. (2001). Working scientifically in learner-centered ways. Paper presented at the International History and Philosophy of Science and Teaching Conference, November 7-11, in Denver, Colorado.

[21]. Manning, C., Brooks, W., Crotteau, V., Diedrich, A., Moser, J., & Zwiefelhofer, A. (2011). Tech tools for teachers by teachers: Bridging teachers and students. Wisconsin English Journal, 53(1), 24-28.

[22]. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[23]. National Research Council. (1995). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. .

[24]. National Research Council. (2011). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, cross-cutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

[25]. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2004). Engaging Schools: Fostering high school students' motivation to learn. Committee on Increasing High School Students' Engagement and Motivation to Learn. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Science and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.

[26]. Odom, A., Stoddard, E., & LaNasa, S., Teacher practices and middle-school science achievements. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1329- 1346.

[27]. Osbourne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes toward science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9),1049-1079.

[28]. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2006). Results that matter: 21st century skills and high school reform. Retrieved January 21, 2012 from http://www.21st century skills.org/ index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=204&It emid=114.

[29]. Perkins, J. (2009). Where are the instructions? Understand more, remember better: Learning to use preziin the 21st century. Digital Pedagogies.

[30]. Perron, B., & Stearns, A. (2010). A review of apresentation technology: Prezi. Research on Social Work Practice. [30]. Prezi website. Retrieved from http://prezi.com/.

[31]. Project Tomorrow. (2011). SpeakUp 2010 national findings. Retrieved on Januar y 21, 2012 from www.netday.org/SPEAKUP/.

[32]. Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. (2011). Prezi: Trading linear presentations for conceptual learning experiences in counselor education. Council for Higher Education Pedagogy.

[33]. Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas- Walker, F. (2011). Effects of technology immersion on middle school students' learning opportunities and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(5), 299-315.

[34]. Spires, H., Lee, J., & Turner, K. (2008). Having our say: Middle grade student perspectives on school, technologies, and academic engagement. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 497-515.

[35]. Stears, M. (2009). How social and critical constructivism can inform science curriculum design: A study from South Africa. Educational Research, 51(4), 397- 410.

[36]. Teoh, B., & Neo, T. (2007). Interactive multimedia learning: Students' attitudes and learning impact in an animation course. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 6(4).

[37]. Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2007). Voices of students on engagement: a report on the 2006 high school survey of student engagement. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Center for Evaluation and Education Policy. Retrieved January 20, 2012 from http://www.indiana.edu /~ceep/hssse/images/HSSSE%20Overview%20Report%20 -%202006.pdf.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Encouraging innovativeness through Computer-Assisted Collaborative Learning

Gisli Thorsteinsson* , Tom Page**

University of Iceland

Loughborough University

Thorsteinsson, G. and Page, T . (2012). Encouraging Innovativeness Through Computer-Assisted Collaborative Learning.i-manager’s Journal on School Education Technology, 7(3), 22-30. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.7.3.1671

Abstract

This article puts forward a three related case study series, using a Virtual Reality Learning Environment (VRLE) with a view to supporting the development of students' ideation skills in conventional primary and secondary education. This learning environment is fairly new and therefore it is necessary to examine its educational uses and determine if the new learning environment will meet teachers’ expectations. Therefore, the overall goal for this research was twofold: a) to explore the ways in which idea generation was developed during students’ work and b) to assess the way VRLE affects student idea generation work. The data collected was qualitative and the analysis was based on grounded theory principles and an interpretive paradigm.

References

[1]. Blom, J.O. and Monk, A.F. (2003). A theory of personalisation of appearance: why users personalise their PCs and mobile phones. Human-Computer Interaction , Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 193-228.

[2]. Bricken, M. (1991). Virtual reality learning environments: Potentials and challenges. Computer Graphics, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 178-184.

[3]. Chiu, M.M. (2000). Group problem solving processes: Social interactions and individual actions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 27-50.

[4]. Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: Taylor & Francis e-Library.

[5]. Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[6]. Demerest, M. (1997). Understanding knowledge management, Journal of Long Range Planning, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 374-84.

[7]. Denzin, N.K. (1984). The research act. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

[8]. Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

[9]. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. Advances in Learning and Instruction Series. New York, NY: Elsevier Science, Inc.

[10]. Ellis, C.A., Gibbs, S.J. and Rein, G.L. (1991). G r o u p w a r e : S o m e i s s u e s a n d e x p e r i e n c e s. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 38-58.

[11]. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.

[12]. Guilford, J.P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, Vol. 5, No. 9, pp. 444-454.

[13]. Gunnarsdottir, R. (2001). Innovation Education: Defining the Phenomenon. Unpublished doctoral thesis.Leeds: University of Leeds.

[14]. Hamburg, I., Lindecke, C. and Thij, H.T. (2003). Social aspects of e-learning and blending learning methods. In Proceedings of the 4th European conference E-commline. Bucharest.

[15]. Hauber, J., Regenbrecht, H., Hills, A.,Cockburn, A. and Billinghurst, M. (2005). Social Presence in two- and three-dimensional Videoconferencing. London: Proceedings Presence Workshop.

[16]. Hennessey, S. and Deaney, R. (2004). Sustainability and evolution of ICT supported classroom practice. Retrieved (5.April 2009) from http://131.111.153. 52/istl/SAE041.doc.

[17]. Henry, J. (1991). Creative Management, London: Sage Publications.

[18]. Hussain, H., Embi, Z.C. and Hashim, S. (2003). A Conceptualized Framework for Edutainment. Informing Science: InSite - Where Parallels Intersect, pp. 1077-1083.

[19]. Johnson, A., Moher, T., Choo, Y., Lin, Y.J. and Kim, J. (2002). Augmenting elementary school education with VR. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, March/April, pp. 6-9.

[20]. Jonassen, D. (2006). A constructivist'sperspective on functional contextualism. Educational Technology Research & Development, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 43-47.

[21]. Loiselle, J., St. Louis, M. and Dupuy-Walker, L. (1998). Giving professional help to pre-service teachers through computer-mediated communication. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Dallas

[22]. McLellan, H. (1996). Virtual reality.In Jonassen D. (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology, pp. 457-487. MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.

[23] O'Quin K. and Derks, P. (1999). Humour and creativity: A review of the empirical literature. In: Runco, M. (Editor), Creativity research handbook, Vol. 1, pp. 223-252. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

[24]. Ogle, T. (2002). The Effects of Virtual Environments on Recall in Participants of Differing Levels of Field Dependence.PhD Dissertation.Virginia Polytechnic and State University. Blacksburg, VA.

[25]. Osberg, K.M. (1993). Virtual reality and education: A look at both sides of the sword.

[26]. Osborn, A.F. (1967). Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem Solving (Third Revised Edition). NY: Charles Scribner's Sons.

[27]. Oulasvirta, A. and Blom, J. (2008). Motivations in personalisation behaviour. Interacting with Computers, Vol. 20, No.1, pp.1-16.

[28]. Passey, D., Rogers, C., Machell, J. and McHugh, G. (2004). The Motivational Effect of ICT on Pupils. Department of Educational Research Lancaster University.

[29]. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research[1]. Methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

[30]. Paulus, P.B., Larey, T.S. and Ortega, A.H. (1995). Performance and perceptions of brainstormers in an organizational setting. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 1-2, pp. 249-265.

[31]. Prensky, M. (2005). Engage Me or Enrage Me: What Today's Learners Demand. Educause Review, Vol. 40, pp. 6 0 - 6 5 . R e t r i e v e d ( 1 2 . A u g u s t, 2 0 0 9 ) f r o m http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/r-93-7/

[32]. Rickards, T. and Freedman, B. (1978). Procedures for management in idea-deficient situations: an examination of brainstorming approaches. The Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 43-55.

[33]. Romiszowski, A.J. & Mason, R. (1996). Computermediated communication. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 438-456).New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

[34]. Schrum, L. & Berenfeld, B. (1997). Teaching and learning in the information age: A guide to educational tele- communications. Needham Heights: Allyn&Bacon.

[35]. Smith, G.F. (2003). Towards a Logic of Innovation. The International Handbook on Innovation. Elsevier Science Ltd.

[36]. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T. & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

[37]. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

[38]. Taylor, D.W., Berry, P.C. and Block C.H. (1958). Does Group Participation When Using Brainstorming Facilitate or Inhibit Creative Thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 23-47.

[39]. Taylor, R. (1980). The Computer in the school: tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.

[40]. The Oxford Dictionaries Online (2011). Retrieved (5. April, 2011) from http://oxforddictionaries.com.

[41]. Thompson, L. (2008). Making the team: A guide for managers (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

[42]. Thorsteinsson, G, Page, T. and Niculescu, A. (2010). Adoption of ICT in supporting ideation skills in conventional classroom settings', Journal of Studies in Informatics and Control, Vol. 193, pp. 309-318, ISSN 1200-1766.

[43]. Thorsteinsson, G. and Denton, H. (2003). The development of Innovation Education in Iceland: a pathway to modern pedagogy and potential value in the UK. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 172-179.

[44]. Thorsteinsson, G., Denton, H.G., Page, T. and Yokoyama, E. (2005). Innovation Education within the Technology Curriculum in Iceland. Bulletin of Institute of Vocational and Technical Education, pp 1-9. Graduate School of Education and Human Development. Japan: Nagoya University. ISSN 1348-4893.

[45]. Thorsteinsson, G. and Denton, H.G. (2006). Ideation in a Virtual Learning Environment: A Pilot Project from Iceland in Innovation Education. In Norman, E.W.L., Spendlove, D. and Owen-Jackson, G. (Eds), The Design and Technology Association International Research Conference book 2006. Telford, July 2006, pp. 155-164, Wellesbourne: The Design and Technology Association.

[46]. Thorsteinsson, G. and Denton, H.G. (2008). Developing an understanding of the pedagogy of using a Virtual Reality Learning Environment (VRLE) to support Innovation Education (IE) in Iceland: a literature survey. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 15-26, ISBN 1360-1431.

[47]. Thorsteinsson, G., Page, T. and Niculescu, A. (2010). U s i n g V i r t u a l R e a l i t y f o r D e v e l o p i n g D e s i g n Communication. Journal of Studies in Information and Thorsteinsson, G. and Denton, H.G. (2008). Control, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 93-106, ISBN 1220-1766.

[48]. Thurlow, C.,Lengel, L. & Tomic, A. (2004). Computer Mediated Communication: Social Interaction and the Internet. London: Sage.

[49]. Titus, P. (2000). Marketing and the creative problemsolving process. Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 225-35.

[50]. Van de Ven, A., Angle, V. and Poole, M.S. (2000). Research on the Management of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Using Multimedia with Kindergarten to Increase Homework Participation

Mary Tunstall* , Prince Bull**

* M.A., North Carolina Central, University.

** Associate Professor, Educational Technology, North Carolina Central University.

Tunstall, M. and Bull, P.H. (2012). Using Multimedia With Kindergarten To Increase Homework Participation.i-manager’s Journal on School Education Technology, 7(3), 31-38. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.7.3.1674

Abstract

This study stemmed from a concern that homework instruction, verbal and print oriented, did not reflect a 21st century learning strategy for kindergarten students due to their reading levels and their abilities to consistently follow written instructions to complete tasks. The study examined 18 kindergarten students’ perceptions of using multimedia, video and screen capture, as a medium for homework instruction and activities. The study guided by the constructivist teaching approach, described how multimedia was used as a motivational tool to engage students in literacy instruction and knowledge construction. Findings show that use of multimedia motivated and engaged students in learning both in school and at home. Students stated that multimedia activities were fun. Mean scores from pre-survey to post-survey show positive dispositions to the integration of multimedia in the class and homework activities. Findings also show that multimedia helped students create knowledge and work as a team. A by-product of this study was increased parental involvement in students’ learning. Parental supervision was required for students to play DVDs or to access online files at home. This request turned out to be a positive outcome of the study.

References

[1]. Brown, A. & Green, T. (2007). Podcasting and video podcasting: How it works and how it's used for instruction. In R. Carlsen et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp. 1915-1921). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

[2]. Bull, P. H. (2012). Using Spatial Constructivist Thinking Theory to Enhance Classroom Instruction for Students with Special Needs. In Aitken, J. E., Fairley, J. P., & Carlson, J. K. (Eds.), Communication Technology for Students in Special Education and Gifted Programs. (pp. 66-81). doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-878-1.ch005

[3]. Bull, P. (2009). Cognitive Constructivist Theory of Multimedia Design: A Theoretical Analysis of Instructional Design for Multimedia Learning. In G. Siemens & C. Fulford (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 2009 (pp. 735-740). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

[4]. Burkes, S. & Snyder, S. (2009). An assessment of faculty usage of YouTube as a teaching resource in health education classes. Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice. January, 2009.

[5]. Hansson, H. & Wettergren, G. (2011). TeleVisions and teleReality-How to understand and use Internet video in education. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 327-334). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

[6]. Howard, T., Kanai, T. & Mazintas, T. (2009). The constructivist classroom: Venue for social change. In G. Siemens & C. Fulford (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 2009 (pp 1716-1719). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

[7]. Lupshenyuk, D. (2010). What is Web 2.0 Video? Pedagogical strategy for infusing Web 2.0 Video in Student Learning. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 2010 (pp.1369-1373). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

[8]. Neo, M., Neo, K.T.K. & Tan, H.Y.J. (2011). Content restructuring with authentic learning strategies in a multimedia learning environment (MMLE). In T. Bastiaens & M. Ebner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 2011 (pp 2233-2242). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

[9]. Newland, B., Dickson, C. & Galling, T. (2010). Enhancing the student learning experience with captured lectures. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 2010 (pp 1826-1834). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

[10]. O'Byrne, B., D. & Murrell, S. (2011). Literacy in Multimedia Environments: Preliminary Findings. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.) Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 2011 (pp. 1600-1606). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

[11]. Shih, C. & Waugh, M. (2011). Web 2.0 tools for learning in higher education: The presence of blogs, wikis, podcasts, microblogs, Facebook and Ning. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 2011 (pp. 3345-3352). Chesapeake, Va: AACE.

[12]. Sing, K.M. (2010). Blended learning with authentic tasks using digital video tutorials. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 2010 (pp 2926-2930). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

[13]. Tapscott , D., & Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. New York, NY: Portfolio.

[14]. Yelland, N., Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2008). Learning by Design: Creating effective contexts for curriculum and pedagogies in contemporary times. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 3971-3978). Chesapeake, VA:AACE.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Using iPad2 for a Graduate Practicum Course

Lindsey Sachs* , Prince Bull**

* M.A., North Carolina Central University.

** Associate Professor, Educational Technology, North Carolina Central University

Sachs ,L. and Bull, P.H. (2012). Using iPad2 For A Graduate Practicum Course.i-manager’s Journal on School Education Technology, 7(3), 39-45. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.7.3.1676

Abstract

iPads and iPhones continue to impact academia, but the iPad2 provides features that could enhance teacher education programs. This paper addresses how eight graduate students and a faculty used iPad2 to support a graduate practicum course. Participants were asked to report how they used their iPad2 each week in the form of a written log and complete a survey after seven weeks. Participants used the camera or video feature to create educational tutorials, record video logs, record interviews, capture student footage for parent night presentations, record guest speaker presentations for future playback, archive students acting in performances for homework instruction, document follow up communication after professional development sessions. Others used Apps to improve delivery of instruction and record student collaborative group work with video and camera footage. Over 86% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that if given a class set of iPad2’s, student learning and performance would improve.

References

[1]. Barack, L. (2010). Is the iPad fit for school?. School Library Journal, 56(5), 12. Retrieved from http://www. schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6727279.html.

[2]. Barnes, J. & Herring, D. (2011). Learning their way: mobile devices in education. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 2011 (pp. 127-129). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

[3]. Baum, M. &Walter, E. A. (2011). Will the iPad revolutionize education? Learning & Leading with Technology, (Vol. 38). (7), 6. Retrieved August 28, 2011, from A c a d e m i c O n e F i l e v i a G a l e : http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?&id=GALE%7CA256171 706&v=2.1&u=duke_perkins&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w

[4]. Briggs, L. (2006). A mobile cause: incorporating handhelds into the classroom means first having to address a few key challenges. The Journal (Technological Horizons in Education), 33(8), 20.

[5]. Christmann, E., Lucking, B., & wighting, M. (2010). Hang up and learn: Cell phones in the science classroom. Science Scope, 33(9), 82.

[6]. Gupta, B., & Koo, Y. (2010). Applications of mobile learning in higher education: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 6(3), 75.

[7]. Hlodan, O. (2010). Mobile learning anytime, anywhere. BioScience, 60(9), 682.

[8]. Kennedy, M. (2011). Learning tools. American School & University, 83(10), 16.

[9]. Project Tomorrow. (2010). Project K-Nect evaluation report: Students leverage the power of mobile devices through the project K-Nect mobile learning initiative in Onslow County. Retrieved October 11, 2011, from http://www.tomorrow.org/docs/Project_K- Nect_EvaluationReport_Final_Jul7.pdf

[10]. Schaffhauser, D. (2011). The ABCs of BYOL: how a bring-your-own-laptop program may eventually put a device into the hands of every student in an Ohio school district- and technology into every one of its classrooms. The Journal (Technological Horizons in Education), 38(5), 22.

[11]. Waters, J.K. (2010). Enter the iPod (or not?): Apple's new table computer has earned raves for its design, portability, and dynamic apps, but is it any better than netbooks and laptops now fueling school computing programs? Depends who you ask. The Journal (Techological Horizons in Education), 37(6), 38.

[12]. Wieder, B. (2011). iPads for college classrooms? Not so fast, some professors say, Rival tablet PC's foster more interactivity, studies suggest. But students' craving for the Apple devices could matter more. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 57(28).

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Reviewing The Barriers Associated With The Technological Needs Of Teachers In The 21st Century Education

Faezeh Seyedarabi*

Visiting Lecture, City University, London.

Seyedarabi ,F. (2012). Reviewing The Barriers Associated With The Technological Needs Of Teachers In The 21st Century Education.i-manager’s Journal on School Education Technology, 7(3), 46-55. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.7.3.1675

Abstract

This paper reviews barriers associated with the use of ICT tools by teachers in their classroom teaching at ‘technical’, ‘teaching’ and ‘school’ levels. The aim of this review is to highlight the fact that there is currently less research work on the kind of technology teachers need for adopting ICT tools in the 21st century education. There has been much work carried out on easing ICT and internet barriers through resourcing and teacher training. However, there is less work on the sort of technology that teachers would like to use for their teaching, particularly when searching online for teaching resources. Hence, a call for further research in web ‘personalisation’, an emerging direction that is currently adopted by technologists and the government was made as a proposed new approach or possible solution to the technical barriers of teachers.

References

[1]. Allen, F. (2006). Has Knowledge changed forevere? Conneted: Learning and Teaching Scotland. Glasgow.

[2]. Baker, M. (1997). The National Grid for Learning Consultation Paper: A Personal Response. Retrieved from http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/mbaker/material/natgrid.ht ml

[3]. Becta. (2007a). Harnessing Technology Review 2007: Progress and impact of technology in education. Retrieved from http://publications.becta.org.uk/ display.cfm? resId=33979

[4]. Becta. (2007b). Harnessing Technology Review 2007: Progress and impact of technology in education: summary report. Retrieved from http://partners.becta. org.uk/index.php?section=rh&catcode=_re_rp_02&rid =14409

[5]. BESA. (2007). Information and Communication Technology in UK State Schools: Summary Report. Volume 1 & 2.

[6]. BESA. (2009). BESA ICT in UK State Schools 2009 summary report ICT Provision & Use in 2009/10. A summary document containing highlighted trend, and headline statistics from BESA's ICT in UK State Schools 2009 summary report. BESA. Retrieved from http://www.besa.org.uk/ besa/documents/view.jsp?item=1326

[7]. Cartwright, V., & Hammond, M. (2007). “Fitting it in”: A study exploring ICT use in a UK primary school. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(3), 390-407.

[8]. Chowcat, I., Phillips, B., & Popham, J. (2008). Harnessing Technology: Preliminary identification of trends affecting the use of technology for learning. Nottingham: Learning Sciences Research Institute, University of Nottingham.

[9]. Crowne, S. (2009). Next Generation Learning: Leading a Strategy for Success. (Becta, Ed.). London: Becta.

[10]. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold And Underused: Computers In The Classroom. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

[11]. Davis, R. (2009). A gigantic online swapshop. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/ education/2009/apr/14/national-digital-resource-bankteaching? INTCMP=SRCH

[12]. DfEE. (1997). Connecting the Learning Society, National Grid for Learning, The Government's Consulation Paper. Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). Retrieved from http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/ consultations/ downloadableDocs/42_1.pdf

[13]. DfES. (2003). Fulfilling the Potential: Transforming teaching and learning through ICT in schools. DfES. Retrieved from http://www.dfes.gov.uk/ictinschools

[14]. DfES. (2005). The e-Strategy “Harnessing Technology: Transforming learning and children’s services' [UK].

[15]. DfES. (2006). 2020 Vision; Report of the Teaching and Learning in 2020 Review Group. Retrieved from http://publications.education.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/ 6856-DfES-Teaching and Learning.pdf

[16]. EDSI. (1999). Educational Depar tments' Superhighways Initiative. Becta Government & partners. Retrieved from http://partners.becta.org.uk/ index.php?section=rh&catcode=&rid=13686

[17]. Guha, S. (2003). Are We All Technically Prepared? - Teachers' Perspective on the Causes of Comfort or Discomfort in Using Computers at Elementary Grade Teaching. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 317-349.

[18]. Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2008). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution and change.

[19]. Heppell, S. (2008). Education 2020. ESCalate Newsletter. Retrieved from http://escalate.ac.uk/4454

[20]. Kitchen, S., Dixon, J., McFarlane, A., Roche, N., & Finch, S. (2006). Curriculum Online, Final Report. Becta. Retrieved from http://www.becta.org.uk

[21]. Kitchen, S., Finch, S., & Sinclair, R. (2007). Harnessing Technology Schools Survey 2007. Conventry:Becta. Retrieved from http://partners.becta.org.uk/ index.php?section=rh&catcode=_re_rp_02&rid=14110

[22]. Larner, David K.; Timberlake, L. M. (1995). Teachers with Limited Computer Knowledge: Variables Affecting Use and Hints To Increase Use. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED384595.pdf

[23]. Law, N., Pelgrum, W.J., and Plomp, T., eds. (2008). Pedagogy and ICT Use In Schools Around The World: Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study (Hong Knog, CERCSpringer).

[24]. Leach, J., & Moon, B. (2000). Pedagogy, information and communications technology and teachers' professional knowledge. The Curriculum Journal , 11(3), 385-404.

[25]. Lindsay, G., Muijs, D., Hartas, D., & Band, S. (2006). Evaluation of Capital Moderation Funding For Electronic Registration in Selected Secondary Schools. DfES. Retrieved from www.dfes.gov.uk/research/ programmeofresearch/project information.cfm? projectid=13713&resultpage=1

[26]. Madden, A., Ford, N., Miller, D., & Levy, P. (2005). Using the Internet in teaching: the views of practitioners (A survey of the views of secondary school teachers in Sheffield, UK). British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2).

[27]. Morris, M. (2002). How New Teachers Use Technology in the Classroom. Paper presented at: Association of Teacher Educators. Williamsburg, VA: EDRS.

[28]. Moss, G. D. (1992). Computing awareness and use of content-free software in comprehensive schools. Computers and Education, 18(4).

[29]. NetDay. (2001). The Internet, Technology and Teachers. Retrieved from www.netday.org/downloads/ Web_survey_briefing.pdf

[30]. Ofsted. (2002). ICT in Schools: Effect of government initiatives, Implementation in Primary Schools and Effect on Literacy. Crown. Retrieved from www.ofsted.gov.uk

[31]. Ofsted. (2008). ICT in primary and secondary schools: Ofsted's findings 2005/2007. Crown. Retrieved from www.ofsted.gov.uk

[32]. Ofsted. (2009). Press release: Information and communication technology in schools improving but inconsistent; some secondary schools lag behind. Ofsted. Retrieved from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/news/informationand- communication-technology-schools-improvinginconsistent- some-secondary-schools-lag-b

[33]. Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: results from a worldwide educational assessment. Computers and Education, 37, 163-178.

[34]. Rogers, L. (2003). Does ICT In Science Really Work In The Classroom? GIREP Seminar. University of Leicester, England: Udine.

[35]. Selwyn, N. (1999). Differences in educational computer use: the influence of subject cultures. Curriculum Journal, 10(1). doi:10. 1080/ 0958517990100104

[36]. Seyedarabi, F. (2011). Personalization: An emerging direction for tackling the web searching barriers faced by teachers when searching for educational resources. Webology, 8(2).

[37]. Sorensen, P., Twidle, J., Childs, A., & Godwin, J. (2007). The Use of the Internet in Science Teaching: A longitudinal study of developments in use by student teachers in England. International Journal of Science Education, 29(13), 1605-1627.

[38]. Sunikka, A., & Bragge, J. (2008). What, Who and Where: Insights into Personalization. Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Waikoloa, HI.

[39]. Twidle, J., Sorensen, P., Childs, A., Godwin, J., & Dussart, M. (2006). Issues, challenges and needs of student science teachers in using the Internet as a tool for teaching. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15(2), 207-221.

[40]. Vanfossen, P. J. (1999). “Teachers would have to be crazy not to use the Internet”: A preliminary Analysis of the Use of the Internet/WWW by Secondary Social Studies Teachers in Indiana. Information Technology for Teacher Education, 2(2), 139-153.

[41]. Watson, D. (1993). The ImpacT Report: An Evaluation of the Impact of IT on Children's Achievements in Primary and Secondary Schools (London, Centre for Educational Studies).

[42]. Wirken, D. (2006). The Issue Of Trust With Search Engines And The World Wide Web. Article Karma.com, 2006(12 October), 1-2. Article Dashboard. Retrieved from http://www.articlekarma.com/Article/The-Issue-Of-Trust- With-Search-Engines-And-The-World-Wide-Web/21773

i-manager's Journal on School Educational Technology (JSCH)

Current Issue Vol. 19 Issue 2

Most Read

Most Cited

Volume 7 Issue 3 December - February 2012

Cross Curricular Connections: An Innovative Model for Curriculum Transaction

H.G. Jeya Harish* , R.Krishna Kumar**, B. William Dharma Raja***

PhD Scholar & Principal, Coimbatore Public School, Coimbatore Professor of Education, Annamalai University, Chidambaram Assistant Professsor of Education, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli

Harish,H.G.J., Krishnakumar,R. and Dharmaraja,B.W. (2012). Cross Curricular Connections: An Innovative Model ForCurriculum Transaction.i-manager’s Journal on School Education Technology, 7(3), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.7.3.1668

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Using Prezi to Motivate Middle School Science Students

Caroline Bender* , Prince Bull**

M.A., North Carolina Central University. Associate Professor, Educational Technology, North Carolina Central University

Bender, C., and Bull, P.H . (2012). Using Prezi To Motivate Middle School Science Students.i-manager’s Journal on School Education Technology, 7(3), 10-21. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.7.3.1669

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Encouraging innovativeness through Computer-Assisted Collaborative Learning

Gisli Thorsteinsson* , Tom Page**

University of Iceland Loughborough University

Thorsteinsson, G. and Page, T . (2012). Encouraging Innovativeness Through Computer-Assisted Collaborative Learning.i-manager’s Journal on School Education Technology, 7(3), 22-30. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.7.3.1671

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Using Multimedia with Kindergarten to Increase Homework Participation

Mary Tunstall* , Prince Bull**

* M.A., North Carolina Central, University. ** Associate Professor, Educational Technology, North Carolina Central University.

Tunstall, M. and Bull, P.H. (2012). Using Multimedia With Kindergarten To Increase Homework Participation.i-manager’s Journal on School Education Technology, 7(3), 31-38. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.7.3.1674

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Using iPad2 for a Graduate Practicum Course

Lindsey Sachs* , Prince Bull**

* M.A., North Carolina Central University. ** Associate Professor, Educational Technology, North Carolina Central University

Sachs ,L. and Bull, P.H. (2012). Using iPad2 For A Graduate Practicum Course.i-manager’s Journal on School Education Technology, 7(3), 39-45. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.7.3.1676

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Reviewing The Barriers Associated With The Technological Needs Of Teachers In The 21st Century Education

Faezeh Seyedarabi*

Visiting Lecture, City University, London.

Seyedarabi ,F. (2012). Reviewing The Barriers Associated With The Technological Needs Of Teachers In The 21st Century Education.i-manager’s Journal on School Education Technology, 7(3), 46-55. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.7.3.1675

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

H.G. Jeya Harish* , R.Krishna Kumar, B. William Dharma Raja*

PhD Scholar & Principal, Coimbatore Public School, Coimbatore

Professor of Education, Annamalai University, Chidambaram

Assistant Professsor of Education, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli

M.A., North Carolina Central University.

Associate Professor, Educational Technology, North Carolina Central University

University of Iceland

Loughborough University

* M.A., North Carolina Central, University.

** Associate Professor, Educational Technology, North Carolina Central University.

* M.A., North Carolina Central University.

** Associate Professor, Educational Technology, North Carolina Central University