Talk:Teaching techniques

From PsychonautWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

General

Collaborative simulation games favoring schema's for identifying intelligent systems.

  • Irrelevant story lines (0.63) >>>>>> relevant (0.17) (narrative storytelling doesn't matter that much & entertainment vs school-like doesn't either [1]
  • Collaboration[1] (w/ games) > computers > traditional instruction.[2][3]
  • It improves Declarative knowledge (memorizing facts) over conventional (0.34)[1]
  • Across all education levels: intelligent systems > information resources > scaffolding (0.385, almost don't even use)[2]
  • Schematic games (0.46) > cartoon-like (0.20) > photorealistic (0.14).[1]
  • Schematic (0.48) > realistic (-0.01)[1]
  • Physics (0.38) > Life science (0.33) > Chemistry (0.24)[1]
  • Science (0.67) > Computer science (0.50) > Health science (0.41) > math (0.33)[2]
  • Science (1.275) > Health education (0.126) > Arts (0.588) > Math (0.583)
  • Simulations (1.07) > integrated environments (0.68) > participatory technology (0.65)[2]
  • Highest effect sizes with simulations[1]
  • Live simulations > mannequins > virtual objects[4]
  • 1-3month course duration had the highest effect sizes.[5] Instructional duration didn't matter (<20 hr or >21hrs)[6] It has to be different content each time though[1][3] Effects of online scaffolding by learning outcome
  • 5-10min is the typical attention span: Active/Passive not significant. [1][7]

comp-based STEM: No Scaffolding [8]

Scaffolding improves analysis (identifying components of information and ideas), but not synthesis (recognition of patterns) nor evaluation (judging data).[8]

Science

Do

  • Serious games (pref. Science) supplemented with other instructional methods (0.41)[1] Science and health education had the highest effect sizes for Gamification[5]
  • Intelligent systems (1.04)[2]
  • Active/Hands-on (0.93)[2]
  • Inquiry learning (0.71)[2]
  • Representational tools (0.62)[2]
  • Information resources (0.58)[2]
  • Integrated environments (0.58)[2]
  • Discussion board (0.41)[2]

Do not

  • Scripted problem-solving (0.25) (In general education: Scripted problem solving (0.87)[2]

Computers

Computer aid helps regardless of field and works in all fields[9]

Do

Collaborative learning Process (0.58) Knowledge (0.53) Applied Affective (0.38)

  • Engineering: 0.528[8]
  • Technology: 0.379[8]
  • Mathematics (0.425)[8]

Do not

Science (0.146)[8]

Community Design

Do

  • Prompts with unfamiliar context (0.92)[4] (Prompts = short textual hints within the simulation environment, which suggested actions or allowed revisit previous levels)
  • Video conferences & shared workspaces (0.78)[2]
  • Badges + leaderboard/rank + points (0.773)[5]
  • no leaderboards = 0.771 [10]
  • quests/missions/modules (goals and chunking) (0.649) [10]
  • Collaboration (0.609)[10]
  • Points (0.607)[5]
  • 1 game element (0.607)[10]
  • Not using competition (0.59)[10]
  • 3 game elements (0.588)[10]
  • no timing = 0.529 (not significant)[10]
  • Badges/awards, points/experience, advancement/levels (0.509)[10]
  • Discussion board & information resources (0.48)[2]
  • tangible rewards didn't matter[5]
  • student academic levels and disciplines didn't matter[5]
  • differing instructors didn't matter[5]

Do not

  • leaderboards = 0.358[10]
  • Chat & Representational tools (0.35)[2]
  • Prompts with familiar context (0.33)[4] Prompts = short textual hints within the simulation environment, which suggested actions or allowed revisit previous levels)
  • Knowledge forum & Group awareness tools (0.30)[2]
  • Representational tool & group awareness (0.24)[2]
  • timing = 0.236[10]
  • Games & Tabletop (0.15)[2]
  • Email & Chat & Video conferencing (-0.02) probs due to switching so often = complexity[2]

Scaffolding

Scaffolding is gradually letting the learner take control of the learning experience. It's primarily a meta-cognitive education based on expert modeling and feedback through communications disciplines. Small groups are preferred.

Small groups for Scaffolding[1][6][11][12][13]

  • Pairs >>> Individual >> Triad > Groups 3-8
  • 0.59 >>> 0.47 >> 0.41
  • More than 4 group members tend to have more conflict/negotiating

Conceptual Metacognitive = Strategic Motivational? No

Cooperative >> Collaborative > PBL

  • 0.51 >> 0.46 > 0.18

Fading/Adding > Adding > Fading:

  • 0.590 > 0.443 > 0.429[8]

Self-selected > performance-adaptation > fixed time

  • 0.519 > 0.434 > 0.376

Expert Modeling > Feedback > Hints > Multi-forms > Question prompts

  • 0.523 > 0.474 > 0.375 > 0.340 > 0.078[8]
  • reflection phases w/o guidance[4][11]

Metacognitive > strategic > conceptual

  • 0.384 > 0.345 > 0.126[8]

Meta-Cognitive >>>>> Affective = Cognitive

  • 1.6 >>>>> 0.672 = 0.652[14]

Communications > Computing > Education

  • 1.905 > 1.135 > 0.846[14]

References

  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 Riopel, M., Nenciovici, L., Potvin, P., Chastenay, P., Charland, P., Sarrasin, J. B., Masson, S. (3 July 2019). "Impact of serious games on science learning achievement compared with more conventional instruction: an overview and a meta-analysis". Studies in Science Education. 55 (2): 169–214. doi:10.1080/03057267.2019.1722420. ISSN 0305-7267. 
  2. ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 Jeong, H., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jo, K. (November 2019). "Ten years of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: A meta-analysis of CSCL in STEM education during 2005–2014". Educational Research Review. 28: 100284. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100284. ISSN 1747-938X. 
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Gegenfurtner, A., Ebner, C. (November 2019). "Webinars in higher education and professional training: A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials". Educational Research Review. 28: 100293. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100293. ISSN 1747-938X. 
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Chernikova, O., Heitzmann, N., Stadler, M., Holzberger, D., Seidel, T., Fischer, F. (August 2020). "Simulation-Based Learning in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis". Review of Educational Research. 90 (4): 499–541. doi:10.3102/0034654320933544. ISSN 0034-6543. 
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 Bai, S., Hew, K. F., Huang, B. (June 2020). "Does gamification improve student learning outcome? Evidence from a meta-analysis and synthesis of qualitative data in educational contexts". Educational Research Review. 30: 100322. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100322. ISSN 1747-938X. 
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Kalaian, S., Kasim, R., Nims, J. (8 June 2018). "Effectiveness of Small-Group Learning Pedagogies in Engineering and Technology Education: A Meta-Analysis" (PDF). Journal of Technology Education. 29 (2): 20–35. doi:10.21061/jte.v29i2.a.2. ISSN 2331-4702. 
  7. ↑ Strelan, P., Osborn, A., Palmer, E. (June 2020). "The flipped classroom: A meta-analysis of effects on student performance across disciplines and education levels". Educational Research Review. 30: 100314. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100314. ISSN 1747-938X. 
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 Kim, N. J., Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E. (June 2018). "Effectiveness of Computer-Based Scaffolding in the Context of Problem-Based Learning for Stem Education: Bayesian Meta-analysis". Educational Psychology Review. 30 (2): 397–429. doi:10.1007/s10648-017-9419-1. ISSN 1040-726X. 
  9. ↑ Wilson, A. B., Brown, K. M., Misch, J., Miller, C. H., Klein, B. A., Taylor, M. A., Goodwin, M., Boyle, E. K., Hoppe, C., Lazarus, M. D. (January 2019). "Breaking with Tradition: A Scoping Meta‐Analysis Analyzing the Effects of Student‐Centered Learning and Computer‐Aided Instruction on Student Performance in Anatomy". Anatomical Sciences Education. 12 (1): 61–73. doi:10.1002/ase.1789. ISSN 1935-9772. 
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 Huang, R., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Sommer, M., Zhu, J., Stephen, A., Valle, N., Hampton, J., Li, J. (August 2020). "The impact of gamification in educational settings on student learning outcomes: a meta-analysis". Educational Technology Research and Development. 68 (4): 1875–1901. doi:10.1007/s11423-020-09807-z. ISSN 1042-1629. 
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Kim, N. J., Belland, B. R., Lefler, M., Andreasen, L., Walker, A., Axelrod, D. (June 2020). "Computer-Based Scaffolding Targeting Individual Versus Groups in Problem-Centered Instruction for STEM Education: Meta-analysis". Educational Psychology Review. 32 (2): 415–461. doi:10.1007/s10648-019-09502-3. ISSN 1040-726X. 
  12. ↑ Chen, M., Ni, C., Hu, Y., Wang, M., Liu, L., Ji, X., Chu, H., Wu, W., Lu, C., Wang, S., Wang, S., Zhao, L., Li, Z., Zhu, H., Wang, J., Xia, Y., Wang, X. (December 2018). "Meta-analysis on the effectiveness of team-based learning on medical education in China". BMC Medical Education. 18 (1): 77. doi:10.1186/s12909-018-1179-1. ISSN 1472-6920. 
  13. ↑ Swanson, E., McCulley, L. V., Osman, D. J., Scammacca Lewis, N., Solis, M. (March 2019). "The effect of team-based learning on content knowledge: A meta-analysis". Active Learning in Higher Education. 20 (1): 39–50. doi:10.1177/1469787417731201. ISSN 1469-7874. 
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Doo, M. Y., Bonk, C., Heo, H. (4 March 2020). "A Meta-Analysis of Scaffolding Effects in Online Learning in Higher Education". The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 21 (3). doi:10.19173/irrodl.v21i3.4638. ISSN 1492-3831. 
Retrieved from ‘https://psychonautwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Teaching_techniques&oldid=168143’