Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Thanks for sharing. Yet I have doubts whether we can call Vitamin as a Cognitive Tutoring Tool. I have just visited the site and checked it. Considering the part about principles and methods for cognitive tutor design on page 67, we see that in Cognitive Tutors the emphasis is on the structure underlying the problem solving, and there we see immediate feedbacks and also minimizing working memory load is important part of them. As I see, what is specific about the Cognitive Tutors is that they have algorithms tracing the learning process and directs it according to the learner's performance spontaneously. Observing Vitamin I see a nice online educational tool including videos, examples about the subject and tests. But still I have doubts whether it is a kind of cognitive tutor or an online education platform.

I also played, and had fun during tutoring, I wish ı had an oppurtunity to have that kind of tutors when ı was a kid

I am also curious to hear more about the design principles behind these kind of tutors. I wonder if the designers followed a particular ID model.

I checked it also but when I made an error(Of course it was in purpose B-) the feedback was not like a feedback. And I am also curious what is the meaning of those triangles and trees on the coordinate system according to designer.

I think the designers of these kind of tutors rely on some accepted design principles like representing student competence or minimize working memory load, but they also follow pedagogical guidelines which impose them to find the most appropriate ID model. Since the analogy might be taken too literally they do not prefer to build an ITS modeled on human tutors. So I think there is no specific ID model for the designers but it should be an employee rather than an employer.

I always like the cross cultural studies! Culture is shaped by society which has millions of 'brains' so it would not be so realistic and reasonable not to talk about culture in neuroscience and neuroplasticity.

me too:) I also believe in the same idea, culture should be an issue to take into account in the process.

I deeply believe the power of motivation to learn and classroom technology can be used to enhance students' motivation in learning of the specific content. Still, it is open to debate effective use of technology in classrooms, especially in our country. To deal with this inefficiency of classroom technology, we need to focus on teachers' technology literacy and try to develop this literacy.

Hi Özlem Hoca, BBC news you shared with us is very advisable to our friends. (1) I agree that computers may have the possibility to be distractors for learning and they may be abused by some students. Students may prefer to use computers for activities other than for school activities. When I was an intern teacher, I wanted to show how a literature search is performed to my 20, 9th grade "Project" (noncredit course) students in 2006, I ended up running from one student to another because as I leave him/her with his/her search, s/he began to sign in facebook and their emails. (2) I also agree that plagiarism may occur in homeworks due to internet resources. (3) Another interesting opinion in this news is that "We're training the students to use technology which hasn't yet been invented." We are training the students to the future that is not defined, not yet clear.

I think integrating technology in classrooms is inevitable as computers have been being used in lots of areas in the world and it is a little bit optimistic to assume that education will escape from this "invasion". Today's students live with technology and indeed, technology can enhance the representation of a topic, communication among learners, eliminate time and space limitations in reaching information, etc. The article says that "frequent" use of computers in schools is more likely to be associated with lower results. Instead of frequent use, one should know how one can healthily get benefit from computers, when to use it, how to use it, when not to use it, etc. Those questions are still major questions in modern educational science research. Findings from such research can enhance the positive impact of technology in classrooms.

Having read this week's reading assignment, a part of which focuses on this particular result, I felt the need to comment on your share Özlem hocam. It is mentioned in Chapter 1: Introduction that "in the 1980s, cognitive scientists like Roger Schank and Seymour Papert made claims that computers would transform the schools and learning. This was a rather radical claim and it helped form a strong consensus among parents, bussiness community, politicians that getting computers into schools was a must. During 1990s, installing computers and the Internet in schools was a major trend. By 2003, 95% of all the schools in the US had their computers and were connected to the Internet. However, the impact of this huge investment was highly disappointing. Studies had shown computer use was not correlated with improved student performance. When the reserachers began to study to find the reason, they found out that the computer use in schools was not based on learning sciences; instead, they were being used as an extension of instructional classroom. By this I mean, bringing technology to the classrooms was not enough without changing the structure of instruction. Educational software has been based on instructionist theories, with the computer performing roles that are traditionally performed by the teacher. Teachers and students were not aware of how to use those computers efficiently. Students read the texts on the computers instead of reading them on books.Learning scientists continue to emphasize the powerful role that computers can play in transforming all learning. But they reject instructionalism and behaviorism. Instead, they present a new vision of computers in schools. They suggest that computer should take on a more facilitating role, helping learners have the kind of experiences that lead to deep learning."