Wills
Article Review 1: Tiene (2000)
Tiene, D. (2000). Sensory mode and "information load": examining the effects of timing on multisensory processing. International Journal of Instructional Media , 27 (2), 183-198.
Article Review 2: Clarke et al (2005)
Clarke, T., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The impact of sequencing and prior knowledge on learning mathematics through spreadsheet applications. ETR&D, 53 (3), 15-24.
Article Review 3: Kuo & Hooper (2004)
Kuo, M.A., & Hooper, S. (2004) The effects of visual and verbal coding mnemonics on learning Chinese characters in computer-based instruction. ETR&D, 52 (3), 23-38.
Article Review 4: Jackson et al (2001)
Jackson, A., Kutnick, P., & Kington, A. (2001). Principles and practical grouping for the use of drill and practice programs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 130-141.
Article Review 5: Mendes et al (2001)
Mendes, E., Mosley, N., & Counsell, S. (2001). The cognitive flexibility theory: an approach for teaching hypermedia engineering. SIGCSE Bulletin , 33 (3), 21-24.
Article Review 6: Cho (2004)
Cho, M. (2004). The effects of design strategies for promoting students' self-regulated learning skills on students' self-regulation and achievements in online learning environments. Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 27, 174-179.
Article Review 7: Calvert et al (2003)
Calvert, S. L., Mahler, B. A., Zehnder, S. M., Jenkins, A., & Lee, M. S. (2003). Gender differences in preadolescent children's online interactions: symbolic modes of self-presentation and self-expression. Applied Developmental Psychology , 24, 627-644.
Gagne grid
For DV 1 - recognition of fact
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test Condition
|
|
|
SS
|
No SS
|
Presentation Condition
|
SS
|
80
|
76
|
CS
|
82
|
72
|
Comments (1)
Chip Ingram said
at 1:35 pm on May 15, 2009
I just read your review of Jackson, A., Kutnick, P., & Kington, A. (2001) on grouping young kids for D&P exercises on the computer. Clearly you had some significant questions about this one, and after reading your review, I had even more. I admit that read this one early on because I misinterpreted the title of the article (thinking it might have to do with group the D&P items, not the kids), but once I made the transition to what it is really about, I could see why it might be important. In the discussion of the results I was puzzled because you never really told us what was being measured here. Were the pre- and post-test simply the means of raw scores? Out of how many possible? Were there the same number of questions on each test as well as in the computer materials? When they looked at the tapes, how did they score them. Clearly, from the table you provide, the number of activities was, if anything, higher for the individual kids while the number of statements was much lower. Does it mean much of anything to note that kids working along talk less without someone to talk to? Seems kind of obvious to me. I think you are right to have reservations about this one. Poor studies do need a lot more time and effort on our part, however, I would have liked some more analysis of this one.
You don't have permission to comment on this page.