MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W228543513

Picture This! A Spate of New Multimedia Tools Is Putting a Whole New Face on the Learning Process

2006· article· en· W228543513 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matt Villano

Notice bibliographique

RevueT.H.E. Journal Technological Horizons in Education · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueEducation and Technology Integration
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPower pointWhiteboardInteractive whiteboardMultimediaPoint (geometry)Variety (cybernetics)Computer scienceMobile deviceProcess (computing)Mathematics educationWorld Wide WebPsychologyMathematics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

AMONG THE OLD-SCHOOL resources that the digital age is making obsolete, or at least less consequential, count the chalkboard. For decades, the chalkboard was the focal point of all instruction, the big screen on which teachers wrote out and directed lesson after lesson after lesson. Today, while chalkboards still exist, they are losing their status as the classroom centerpiece--districts are now investing in technology to modernize classroom displays. From interactive whiteboards to handheld tablets, from digital projectors to newfangled video-editing systems, the most successful of these products are those that grab student attention and don't let go. New displays have not come of age in a vacuum. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (www.aap.org), kids in the United States watch an average of four hours of television a day. What's more, a recent report from the National Academy of Sciences (www.nationalacademies.org) shows that 26 percent of US teenagers spend between one and two hours online a day. The statistics indicate that kids prefer to learn in a visual world and like to have information at their fingertips. Across the board, the latest and greatest classroom display products meet these needs. A Smarter Chalkboard Electronic whiteboards are no longer new, but they are still cutting edge. Introduced by Canada-based Smart Technologies (www.smarttech.com) in 1991, the technology combines the simplicity of a whiteboard with the power of a computer. Essentially, the device is one giant computer screen that teachers can manipulate with a variety of tools, enabling them to present slides, take notes, and do a host of other things. Teachers also can use electronic whiteboards to control applications on a computer, write notes in digital ink, or save work to share later. Of course, the best part of the technology is that every student can see it. This is precisely why teachers in the Jennings School District (MO) recently turned to Smart Technologies' Smart Boards to increase student involvement. Last year, the district, in which 77 percent of students qualify for free-lunch programs, applied E-Rate funds to purchase 52 Smart Boards for classrooms in grades 3-12. Once the technology was in place, the school launched a new, inquiry-based approach to learning--an approach Cindy Kicielinski, district instructional technology specialist, says has forced students to find answers for themselves and figure out how to incorporate technology to present those answers to the class.4 You'll see students in the front of the room collaborating in teams, being able to talk effectively about the knowledge that they have, and present it back in a way that everyone understands it, she says. That's a lifelong skill. At J.P. Ryan Elementary Sehool in Waldorf, MD, teachers have deployed whiteboard technology from GTCO CalComp (www.tcocalcom.com) to achieve similar results. Dubbed the InterWrite SchoolBoard, the device incorporates infrared wireless transmitters, which students use to answer questions and record responses with a simple click of a button. Fourth-grade teacher Jill Barnes says the interface makes learning seem like a video game--something to which youngsters are drawn. Barnes describes one geometry lesson in which she used the SchoolBoard to create a memory game similar to the old game show Concentration. The game required kids to move around different pictures of shapes and select the appropriate name for each one. In another lesson, Barnes used the SchoolBoard's spotlight feature to emphasize words she wanted the students to memorize. While both lessons worked well, Barnes says one drawback of the technology is the time it takes to learn to use it. It does take awhile to learn and plan your lessons, she says, noting that it took her the better part of a year to become completely comfortable with the InterWrite board. If you're dedicated to your job, though, that's not really a downside. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,762
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,648

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,038
Tête enseignante GPT0,352
Écart entre enseignants0,314 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueT.H.E. Journal Technological Horizons in EducationMême sujetEducation and Technology IntegrationTravaux en français237 207