computers and learning

Click here to go to next slide

Computers and learningComputers and learning

This presentation is designed to introduce you to some of the basic ideas associated with computers and learning.

This lecture is backed up with more detailed information that has been placed at the course web-site:

http://www.hull.ac.uk/php/edskas/


Course Map: Course Map: Theories of learning and their Theories of learning and their

impact on educational technologyimpact on educational technology

Thorndike and associationism (1898; 1912)

Pavlov and classical conditioning (1902)

Watson and behaviourism (1918)

Skinner and programmed learning (1954)

Piaget and constructivism

(1929)

Vygotsky and constructivism

(1930)

Computer-based instruction e.g. ILS (1960s - 2004)

Papert and LOGO (1980)

Computer Mediated Communication e.g. the

internet and e-mail (1990s)

Audio Visual Instruction: theories of realism (1950)

Comenius Orbus Pictus

(1658)

E-Learning and

Multi-media (1990s)



1943 Modern computing can probably be traced back to the Colossus an electronic computer built in Britain at the end 1943 and designed

to crack the German coding system - Lorenz

cipher.


Computers and learningComputers and learningthe early years of computingthe early years of computing


Computers and learningComputers and learninga view of 2004 from 1968a view of 2004 from 1968



An interesting brief history of the computer-based learning projects that led to integrated learning systems is at:

http://www.coe.uh.edu/courses/cuin6373/idhistory/1960.html


Computers and learning: Computers and learning: ILSILS

integrated learning systemintegrated learning system


Computers and learning: Computers and learning: ILS management systemILS management system


Computers and learning: Computers and learning:

IBM PartnershipIBM PartnershipIn 1963, IBM established a partnership with In 1963, IBM established a partnership with Stanford University's Institute for Mathematical Stanford University's Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences (IMSSS), directed Studies in the Social Sciences (IMSSS), directed by Patrick Suppes, to develop the first by Patrick Suppes, to develop the first comprehensive CAI elementary school comprehensive CAI elementary school curriculum which was implemented on a large curriculum which was implemented on a large scale in schools in both California and scale in schools in both California and Mississippi.Mississippi.

Computer Curriculum CorporationComputer Curriculum Corporation (CCC) (CCC)In 1967, the Computer Curriculum Corporation In 1967, the Computer Curriculum Corporation (CCC) was formed to market the materials (CCC) was formed to market the materials developed through the IBM partnership.developed through the IBM partnership.


Computers and learning: Computers and learning: examples of softwareexamples of software

The programmes from this 1963 project have The programmes from this 1963 project have been refined over 40 years and have been been refined over 40 years and have been studied in UK schools (research results will be studied in UK schools (research results will be presented later in this programme).presented later in this programme).

Click below to be taken to examples of the Click below to be taken to examples of the software available. When you quit the software available. When you quit the examples you will return to this page in the examples you will return to this page in the programme.programme.

Click here forClick here for examples of software examples of software developed from this programme and available through the developed from this programme and available through the SuccessMaker programme distributed by Research Machines in the UKSuccessMaker programme distributed by Research Machines in the UK

Integrated Learning Systems:Integrated Learning Systems:a summary of the research evaluationsa summary of the research evaluations

The UK ILS Evaluations: Final Report, BECTa, 1998 (ISBN 1853794147).qJIUC W8

Integrated learning systems : a report on phase II of the pilot evaluation of ILS in the UK, NCET, 1996 (ISBN 1853793582) Coventry : NCET. JIUC I6

Integrated learning systems : a report of the pilot evaluation of ILS in the UK - January 1994 to July 1994 / compiled by the National Council for Educational Technology, 1994 (ISBN/ISSN 1853793108), Coventry : NCET. JIUC I6

Useful books on ILS:

Integrated learning systems : potential into practice / edited by Jean D.M. Underwood, Jenny Brown, 1997, (ISBN 0435096907) Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Educational Technology. JIUC I6

ILS : a guide to good practice, McFarlane, Angela, 1999 (ISBN 1853794309), Coventry : British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. q JIUC M1

Integrated Learning Systems:Integrated Learning Systems:a summary of the research evaluationsa summary of the research evaluations

The following slides have extracts The following slides have extracts from the UK evaluations of (mainly) from the UK evaluations of (mainly) the SuccessMaker Integrated the SuccessMaker Integrated Learning System.Learning System.

There are copies (3) of each report There are copies (3) of each report (see previous slide for details) in (see previous slide for details) in the Brynmor Jones Library at Hull.the Brynmor Jones Library at Hull.

Phase 1: small scale studies, Phase 1: small scale studies, evaluating competing systems evaluating competing systems (SuccessMake and Global Maths) (SuccessMake and Global Maths) Effect Size linkEffect Size link

Phase two:Phase two:


• Were the learning gains in numeracy Were the learning gains in numeracy found in Phase 1 schools repeated in found in Phase 1 schools repeated in Phase 2 schools?Phase 2 schools?

Phase two: Final Maths Score, Phase two: Final Maths Score, School ASchool A

26.8 28.7

37.3

45.3

0

510

15

2025

3035

4045

50

Avera

ge U

nad

juste

d M

ath

s

Sco

re

At Start After 6 months

CONTROL

ILS

Definition of Effect SizeDefinition of Effect Size

• The Effect Size is the difference in The Effect Size is the difference in performance between the ILS and performance between the ILS and Control group, as expressed as a Control group, as expressed as a proportion of one standard deviation proportion of one standard deviation (SD), of pre-trial scores for the (SD), of pre-trial scores for the combined ILS and control groups.combined ILS and control groups.


• Did pupils who continued to use Did pupils who continued to use SuccessMaker for 18 months SuccessMaker for 18 months continue to make gains?continue to make gains?


• School D: KS2 SuccessMaker group continued School D: KS2 SuccessMaker group continued to gain. (No statistical comparison because to gain. (No statistical comparison because control not tested in Phase 1)control not tested in Phase 1)

• School E: KS3 SuccessMaker group continued School E: KS3 SuccessMaker group continued to gain, but rate of gain slowed slightly (school to gain, but rate of gain slowed slightly (school had reduced sessions from 5 to 3 per week). had reduced sessions from 5 to 3 per week).

Effect Size over 18 months = +0.8Effect Size over 18 months = +0.8

Phase two: Effect Size = 0.8, Phase two: Effect Size = 0.8, School ESchool E

39.72

32.42

43.3

49.944.01

52.18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Avera

ge U

nad

juste

d M

ath

s

Sco

re

At Start After 6 months After 16 Months

CONTROL

ILS


• Pupils continuing to use SM over 18 Pupils continuing to use SM over 18 months maintained gains largely months maintained gains largely acquired during the first phase. Pupil acquired during the first phase. Pupil interviews revealed demotivation, interviews revealed demotivation, however, and indicated that some however, and indicated that some pupils might welcome a break from pupils might welcome a break from ILS at this point.ILS at this point.


• Did pupils who stopped using the Did pupils who stopped using the system maintain their advantage?system maintain their advantage?


• School D, KS2/3, SM children moving on School D, KS2/3, SM children moving on to secondary schools maintained their to secondary schools maintained their advantage (no analysis available advantage (no analysis available because control not tested in Phase 1)because control not tested in Phase 1)

• School E, KS3, SM group continued to School E, KS3, SM group continued to make gains over the control group even make gains over the control group even though they had stopped using the though they had stopped using the system (ES = 0.35)system (ES = 0.35)

Phase two: Impact of time Phase two: Impact of time (Primary)(Primary)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60A

dju

ste

d M

ath

s S

co

re

Low (<23 hrs) Medium (23-39hrs)

High (39-55 hrs)

Time on system

Phase two: Impact of time Phase two: Impact of time (Secondary)(Secondary)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ad

juste

d M

ath

s S

co

re

Low (<23 hrs) Medium (23-39hrs)

High (39-55 hrs)

Time on system

Phase two: Impact of timePhase two: Impact of time

• Period of time over which pupil has Period of time over which pupil has access to the systemaccess to the system

• Frequency of sessionsFrequency of sessions

• Response time to questionsResponse time to questions

Phase two: Impact of timePhase two: Impact of time

• A minimum time on the system of at A minimum time on the system of at least 3 sessions of 30 minutes per least 3 sessions of 30 minutes per week for learning gains.week for learning gains.

LiteracyLiteracy

• No gains were made in literacy in No gains were made in literacy in Phase 1 studiesPhase 1 studies

Literacy, Phase 2Literacy, Phase 2

• School A, KS2, SM pupils gained on School A, KS2, SM pupils gained on average a reading age of 8.4 months average a reading age of 8.4 months compared with control pupils who compared with control pupils who gained only 2.7 months (ES = 0.55)gained only 2.7 months (ES = 0.55)

• School M, KS3, SM pupils gained on School M, KS3, SM pupils gained on average a reading age of 7 months average a reading age of 7 months compared with control pupils who compared with control pupils who gained only 1 month (ES = 0.6)gained only 1 month (ES = 0.6)

Literacy, Phase 2Literacy, Phase 2

• School U, KS2, Control group School U, KS2, Control group outperformed SM group (ES = -0.4). outperformed SM group (ES = -0.4). For this school all SM results were For this school all SM results were negative.negative.

• Supervision very important!Supervision very important!

Phase 3:Phase 3:

Kulik, J. A. (1994): Meta-analytic studies of findings on Kulik, J. A. (1994): Meta-analytic studies of findings on Computer-based learning [Chapter 1, p 9-33]. Computer-based learning [Chapter 1, p 9-33]. In E. L. Baker and H. F. O’Neil (Eds) Technology Assessment in In E. L. Baker and H. F. O’Neil (Eds) Technology Assessment in Education and Training. New Jersey: Lawrence ErlbaumEducation and Training. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

COPY IN SHORT LOAN COLLECTIONCOPY IN SHORT LOAN COLLECTION

Kulik, 1994: Meta-analytic studies of Kulik, 1994: Meta-analytic studies of findings on Computer-based learningfindings on Computer-based learning

Go to Effect Size

Kulik, 1994: Meta-analytic studies of Kulik, 1994: Meta-analytic studies of findings on Computer-based learningfindings on Computer-based learning

Computer-based learning, Level IComputer-based learning, Level I

Computer-based learning, Level IIComputer-based learning, Level II

Computer-based learning, Level IIIComputer-based learning, Level III

Computer-based tutoring vs other Computer-based tutoring vs other innovationsinnovations

Effect SizeEffect Size

34%34%

16% 16%

50%

1 SD 1 SD

+10%34%

16%

50%

1 SD +0.25 SD

60%


+19%34%

16%

50%

1 SD +0.50 SD

69%


+27%34%

16%

50%

1 SD +0.75 SD

77%


34%34%

16% 16%

50%

1 SD 1 SD

84%

Effect Size Effect Size Back to page 14Back to page 14

computers and learning

Documents

low phase

learning gains

school d

school achart126

school echart439

combined ils

sm group

pilot evaluation of