FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W7760900> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W7760900 abstract "After outlining some problems of evaluation methods that are commonly used in the attempt to assure the quality of interactive educational media, the authors present their heuristic model of the learning process. It has the advantage of bringing the social aim and situation of the learning process into focus. This model is the basis for a qualitative approach to software evaluation which helps to define appropriate and creative settings for the use of the software. 1. Problems of Educational Software Evaluation The of quality in interactive ecuational media has accompanied the field since its beginnings. Numerous researchers tried to define criteria of software quality and to compile catalogues from them (see [Doll 1987], [Thome 1989], among others). The idea was to translate these catalogues into checklists that could be of practical use for teachers and trainers in judging educational media. Checklists have the advantage of being cheap and simple to use: no software users (= learners) are needed. But this is also their disadvantage: they cannot make predictions on the context, that is, the specific target group, learning goals, situations etc., in which the software can be more or less usable. What they are left to check are those aspects that can be tested and judged without context. These are, however, mostly those questions that can be applied to any kind of software, i.e. whether it is robust, error-free, well-designed, well documented, easy to learn and user-friendly. The specific character of educational media has to remain outside this method. Empirical methods of evaluation, on the other hand, are costly and time-consuming. They are applied to only a few selected cases of software (often those programs developed by the researchers themselves). One well-known method is based on the comparison of groups of learners. One group works with media support, while the reference group which has to be comparable in age and gender distribution, prior knowledge etc. works without software support with books, classroom teaching etc.). The comparison (most of the time by standard tests) of both groups is supposed to reveal the difference that results from the use of interactive media be it positive or negative. For all its complexity, this method has its pitfalls, too. What can be tested objectively is the memory of the contents learned. However, this amounts to an implicit reduction of learning to the mere reproduction of facts. Furthermore, test groups would be, strictly speaking, only really comparable if both traditional and technology supported teaching were completely identical in contents, goals and methods. But if media are used in this way, they rightly provoke the question what, in these circumstances, is new in them. The with both methods is that they reduce the learning process to a number of individual factors: lists of criteria consider the software without the learners, and comparative studies, while considering the learners, treat them as isolated receptacles of knowledge. Learning with software is, however, a social process in at least two ways: first, it takes place in a certain social situation (in the classroom, at work, at home) and is motivated by it. Secondly, any relevant learning process has as its goal the ability to cope with the social situation (professional or everyday tasks, etc.). The evaluation of interactive media then has to satisfy three conditions: 1. It has to take into account the social situation in which the media are used, and must not be limited to the media themselves 2. It has to take into account the goal of dealing with complex social situations and must not limit itself to the isolated individual learner. 3. It must take into account the specific forms of interaction between the learner and society. These interactions range from the passive reception of static knowledge to the active design of complex, dynamic situations that characterizes the expert. These requirements eliminate evaluation methods that can only pick out single factors. At the same time, they make an objective discussion of media quality difficult. In what follows, we will first outline a heuristic learning model that can be used to define and to design learning situations on the basis of these three conditions. We will then try to propose an evaluation procedure where the concept of absolute quality is replaced by relative values. These values are defined and determined in discourse with the software, with the situation, and with the scientific community. 2. A Model of the Learning Process The model that we propose is inspired by the work of Dreyfus and Dreyfus [Dreyfus and Dreyfus 1987] who studied the learning process from novice to expert: 1. A novice who does not know anything of the subject he/she is approaching has to start with taking in the facts and rules of it. The application of them to the novice's practice or exercise of the field has to be automatic: the novice cannot decide on which rules to apply and learns them as context-free. Practice is thus limited to imitation, to exercise. 2. The beginner can start to learn the context of the rules, i.e. that there are different rules to apply in different cases. The practice becomes more varied and more adapted to individual cases, but it is still impossible to act autonomously in the field. 3. At the third stage, the competent person grasps all the relevant rules and facts of the field and is, for the first time, able to bring his/her own judgment to each case. This is the stage of learning that is often characterized by the term problem solving: the conscious and often laborious decision-making process based on the vast repertoire of facts and rules available to the learner. 4. Contrary to most learning theories, this approach, however, does not stop here and does not consider competence to be the final goal of learning. The fourth stage is called fluency and is characterized by the progress of the learner from the step-by-step analysis and solving of the situation to the holistic perception of the gestalt of the situation. Just like the situation, its solution also starts to present itself as a holistic pattern or gestalt together with the problem. 5. This ability of gestalt perception is brought to perfection by the expert, the final stage in the learning process. An identifies him/herself with the complex real-life situation in which he/she is bound to act. The art of the consists not in solving problems, but in constructing them out of the amorphous complexity of life. This act of creating the already contains its solution. Most theories of learning stop as we mentioned above at the level of competence. Traditional Artificial Intelligence research with its focus on the representation of facts and rules and on solving [Baumgartner and Payr 1995a] has no small part in this narrowing of our perspective on learning. Practitioners and those who are concerned with their education, like Donald Schoen ([Schoen 1983], [Schoen 1987]) have never been satisfied with this view. Schoen's concept of the for example, shows close similarity to the expert characterized above, and his writings about the education of practitioners that have inspired so many educationalists offer an account not only of what it means to be a practitioner, but also of what it could mean to teach them. The that we saw was the gap between the view of beginners through to competent learners and the view of experts-to-be: There did not seem to be a hint of how learners pass from one level to the other, nor a unified picture of the strategies required for educating experts or practitioners. Out of this need, we developed the heuristic cube model [ Fig. 1] that combines the (meta)contents of learning with the goals of the learner and the learning strategies (see [Baumgartner 1991], [Baumgartner 1992], [Baumgartner 1993], [Baumgartner 1995], [Baumgartner and Payr 1994], [Baumgartner and Payr 1995b]). develop act explore understand decide select apply imitate perceive remember teach, explain (teacher) observe, help (Tutor) Simulation, Play Microworld (w/o pre-set Simulation, Game Microworld (pre-set parameters) Tutorial systems" @default.
• W7760900 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W7760900 creator A5006414759 @default.
• W7760900 creator A5045431007 @default.
• W7760900 date "2005-01-01" @default.
• W7760900 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W7760900 title "Learning as Action A Social Science Approach to the Evaluation of Interactive Media" @default.
• W7760900 cites W1515587369 @default.
• W7760900 cites W2048431936 @default.
• W7760900 cites W2106470680 @default.
• W7760900 cites W2325370405 @default.
• W7760900 cites W2329395632 @default.
• W7760900 cites W2568476927 @default.
• W7760900 cites W31045409 @default.
• W7760900 cites W3217660297 @default.
• W7760900 cites W430082150 @default.
• W7760900 cites W183346519 @default.
• W7760900 cites W21514243 @default.
• W7760900 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W7760900 type Work @default.
• W7760900 sameAs 7760900 @default.
• W7760900 citedByCount "5" @default.
• W7760900 countsByYear W77609002012 @default.
• W7760900 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W7760900 hasAuthorship W7760900A5006414759 @default.
• W7760900 hasAuthorship W7760900A5045431007 @default.
• W7760900 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W7760900 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W7760900 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W7760900 hasConcept C2780791683 @default.
• W7760900 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W7760900 hasConcept C49774154 @default.
• W7760900 hasConcept C518677369 @default.
• W7760900 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W7760900 hasConceptScore W7760900C121332964 @default.
• W7760900 hasConceptScore W7760900C136764020 @default.
• W7760900 hasConceptScore W7760900C144024400 @default.
• W7760900 hasConceptScore W7760900C2780791683 @default.
• W7760900 hasConceptScore W7760900C41008148 @default.
• W7760900 hasConceptScore W7760900C49774154 @default.
• W7760900 hasConceptScore W7760900C518677369 @default.
• W7760900 hasConceptScore W7760900C62520636 @default.
• W7760900 hasLocation W77609001 @default.
• W7760900 hasOpenAccess W7760900 @default.
• W7760900 hasPrimaryLocation W77609001 @default.
• W7760900 hasRelatedWork W1490397891 @default.
• W7760900 hasRelatedWork W1503388732 @default.
• W7760900 hasRelatedWork W1534770427 @default.
• W7760900 hasRelatedWork W1565696345 @default.
• W7760900 hasRelatedWork W1578253452 @default.
• W7760900 hasRelatedWork W1976141314 @default.
• W7760900 hasRelatedWork W2042087202 @default.
• W7760900 hasRelatedWork W2045629950 @default.
• W7760900 hasRelatedWork W2105687554 @default.
• W7760900 hasRelatedWork W2144932725 @default.
• W7760900 hasRelatedWork W2155565275 @default.
• W7760900 hasRelatedWork W2209380708 @default.
• W7760900 hasRelatedWork W2249686959 @default.
• W7760900 hasRelatedWork W2336448091 @default.
• W7760900 hasRelatedWork W2338259511 @default.
• W7760900 hasRelatedWork W2395850006 @default.
• W7760900 hasRelatedWork W2503027467 @default.
• W7760900 hasRelatedWork W54013903 @default.
• W7760900 hasRelatedWork W2101875667 @default.
• W7760900 hasRelatedWork W74685240 @default.
• W7760900 isParatext "false" @default.
• W7760900 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W7760900 magId "7760900" @default.
• W7760900 workType "article" @default.