Seminario GITE: Algunas lecturas básicas sobre Tecnología Educativa Volumen 2

Siguiendo con mi empeño de mayo y los seminarios de lecturas. Ahora hemos tenido el seminario de lecturas comentadas Volumen 2, en el que hemos seguido la compilación realizada en el Volumen 2 de Educational Technology de Chris Davies y Rebbeca Eynon (2016) y que ellos titulan “Research into Technology and Learning Sciences, and Associated Theoretical and Methodological Issues”.

Así que, siguiendo la compilación hecha por los autores, hemos recomendado las siguientes lecturas:

The Science of Learning and Instruction Meets Computer Science

  • Vannevar Bush, ‘As We May Think’, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1945, 1–19.
  • Pask, ‘Conversational Techniques in the Study and Practice of Education’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1976, 46, 12–25.
  • Arthur C. Graesser, Shulan Lu, George Tanner Jackson, Heather Hite Mitchell, Matthew Ventura, Andrew Olney, and Max M. Louwerse, ‘AutoTutor: A Tutor with Dialogue in Natural Language’, Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 2004, 36, 2, 180–92.
  • Yanghee Kim and Amy L. Baylor, ‘A Social-Cognitive Framework for Pedagogical Agents as Learning Companions’, Educational Technology Research and Development, 2006, 54, 6, 569–90.
  • Edys S. Quellmalz and James W. Pellegrino, ‘Technology and Testing’, Science, 2009, 2, 75–9

Users and Contexts in Designing Technology for Learning

  • Ann L. Brown, ‘Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings’, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1992, 2, 2, 141–78.
  • Dahlbäck, A. Jönsson, and L. Ahrenberg, ‘Wizard of Oz Studies: Why and How’, Knowledge Based Systems, 1993, 6, 4, 258–66.
  • Kari Kuutti, ‘Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human-Computer Interaction Research’, in B. Nardi (ed.), Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction (MIT Press, 1995), pp. 17–44.
  • Richard E. Mayer and Roxana Moreno, ‘A Split-Attention Effect in Multimedia Learning: Evidence for Dual Processing Systems in Working Memory’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 1998, 90, 2, 312–20.
  • Allison Druin, ‘The Role of Children in Design of New Technology’, Behaviour and Information Technology, 2002, 21, 1, 1–25.
  • Sasha Barab and Kurt Squire, ‘Design Based Research: Putting a Stake in the Ground’, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2004, 13, 1, 1–14.

Part 3: Techniques for Analysing Learning Behaviour Online

  • Henri and B. Pudelko, ‘Understanding and Analysing Activity and Learning in Virtual Communities’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2003, 19, 474–87.
  • De Wever, T. Schellens, M. Valcke, and H. Van Keer, ‘Content Analysis Schemes to Analyze Transcripts of Online Asynchronous Discussion Groups: A Review’, Computers & Education, 2006, 46, 1, 6–28.
  • Caroline Haythornthwaite and Maarten de Laat, ‘Social Networks and Learning Networks: Using Social Network Perspectives to Understand Social Learning’, in L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, and T. Ryberg (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning (2010), pp. 183–90.
  • Cristobal Romero and Sebastian Ventura, ‘Educational Data Mining: A Review of the State of the Art’, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part C: Applications And Reviews, 2010, 40, 6, 601–18.
  • Simon Buckingham Shum and Rebecca Ferguson, ‘Social Learning Analytics’, Educational Technology & Society, 2011, 15, 3, 3–26.
  • Lori Lockyer, Elizabeth Heathcote, and Shane Dawson, ‘Informing Pedagogical Action: Aligning Learning Analytics with Learning Design’, American Behavioral Scientist, 2013, 57, 10, 1439–59.

Deja un comentario