Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The role of perceptions on using learning tools
Norma A. Juarez-Collazo, Jan Elen, Geraldine Clarebout
Introduction Method Results Discussion Conclusion
Problematic
Tools: opportunities---- enhance learning
The complexity of tool use
Conditions to grasp tools
•Tool is there:
•Tool functionality
•Learners recognize tool:
•Metacognitive variables: self-regulation, metacognition…
•Learners are motivated:
•Motivational variables: goal orientation, self-efficacy…
Perkins’ conditions (1985)
Introduction Method Results Discussion Conclusion
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
(Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989)
Introduction Method Results Discussion Conclusion
•Tool functionality:•Are tools functional?
•Perceived usefulness:•Do students perceive the most functional tool?•Is this selection influenced by perceptions?
• Other variables on perceived usefulness :• Do self-efficacy and metacognition affect this perception?
Exploratory study
Introduction Method Results Discussion Conclusion
ParticipantsIntroduction Method Results Discussion Conclusion
•58 university students•74% female•23 years old (SD=3.51)
Design
•Psychomotor task
•Two tools: a guideline and a video
•Four conditions:• Guideline (G) – 17 students• Video (V) – 17 students• Guideline & Video (GV) – 17 students• Control (C) – 7 students
Introduction Method Results Discussion Conclusion
Procedure
Two 30-minute sessions
• First session: questionnaires on self-efficacy (Lodewyk &
Winne, 2005; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie, 1991) and metacognition (MAI questionnaire: Schraw & Dennison, 1994)
• Second session: • Randomly in a condition
1. Building figure w/ tool ---- Learning phase2. Intermediate task3. Building figure w/o tool ---- PERFORMANCE
Introduction Method Results Discussion Conclusion
Data analysis
• Tool functionality: Performance on all conditions
• Perceived usefulness: GV condition on tool choice behavior
• Variables on perceived usefulness: all conditions
Introduction Method Results Discussion Conclusion
Introduction Method Results Discussion Conclusion
•V condition outperformed significantly the other conditionsF(3,54) 5.53 p <.05 η²=.24.
Tools functionality
•Tool choice did not affect performance
H (1) = .60 p=.44
Perceived Usefulness
Introduction Method Results Discussion Conclusion
Variables on perceived usefulness
Introduction Method Results Discussion Conclusion
•No significance difference between variables among conditions
•Self-efficacy F(3,54) 1.01 p=.40 η²=.05. •Metacognition: Information Management Strategies F(3,54) .99 p=.40 η²=.05 •Metacognition: Procedural knowledge F(3,54) .53 p=.67 η²=.03.
•No variable (IV) predicted tool choice (DV) significantly
•Self-efficacy b = -.03, Wald χ2 (1) = .001 , p = .97 •Metacognition: Information Management Strategies b = -.42, Wald χ2 (1) = .08 , p = .77 •Metacognition: Procedural knowledge b = -.17, Wald χ2 (1) = .02 , p = .90
Variables on perceived usefulness
Introduction Method Results Discussion Conclusion
Logistic regression table
Introduction Method Results Discussion Conclusion
•Tools are functional but…•Mirror neuron system: Dinamic visualizations + efficient for movement tasks (van Gog, Paas, Marcus, Ayres, & Sweller, 2009)
•Perceived usefulness on GV condition•Combined tools (Zydney, 2008, 2010) → Cognitive Load (Aleven, Stahl, Schworm, Fischer & Wallace, 2003)
•Tool design: Design for use vs. design of use (Mackay & Gillespie, 1992)
•Tool familiarity (Iiyoshi & Hannafin, 1998)
•Tool flexibility (Shapiro, 2008)
•Variables on perceived usefulness•Sample•Instruments•Duration of task
Discussion
Introduction Method Results Discussion Conclusion
Proposed research model
FURTHER QUESTIONS?
Juarez-Collazo, N. A., Lust, G., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Tool use in a psychomotor task: The role of tool and learner variables. International Journal of Instruction, 4(2).
An article on this experiment is found at: e-iji.net
Tools
Introduction Method Results Discussion Conclusion
