Advertisement

Measuring some Cognitive Effects of Using Control Technology

  • Brigitte Denis
Conference paper
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 116)

Abstract

Different approaches can be used to evaluate the effects of using microworlds such as control technology. Our approach is based on the regulation process and the use of established tools to observe animator and user behaviour. Some user objectives are established as well as a theoretical animator profile which could promote their attainment. Users’ objectives deal with computing and technological literacy, socialization, problem solving and individual cognitive development. Observation grids have also been developed to evaluate whether there is a gap between intentions or claims and action and whether the animators’ evaluation of their activity is realistic. The observation of users’ and animators’ behaviours in a 5th grade primary classroom provided some practical information to help the animators to take regulation decisions and then to increase their congruence and to reach their objectives.

Keywords

Assessment Constructivism Control technology Elementary education Evaluation LOGO Pedagogical robotics Primary school Problem solving Project driven learning Pupil learning Observation Regulation Socialisation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Battro, A.M., Dictionnaire d’épistémologie génétique, Dordrecht, Holland, 1966.Google Scholar
  2. Bayer, E., Une science de l’enseignement est-elle possible? In: M. Crahay, D. Lafontaine (1986), pp. 483–507.Google Scholar
  3. Black, J.B., Swan, K., Schwartz, D.L., Developing thinking skills with computers, Teachers College Record, Columbia University, 89(3), 1988.Google Scholar
  4. Bloom, B.S., Caractéristiques individuelles et apprentissages scolaires, Bruxelles, Labor, 1979.Google Scholar
  5. Cardinet, Evaluer les conditions d’apprentissage des élèves plutôt que leurs résultats, communication colloque rencontre belgo-suisse, Namur, 1983.Google Scholar
  6. Charlier, E., Donnay, J., Un enseignant, un décideur. In: Formation Recherche en Education, pp. 3–10, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, C.M., Peterson, P.L., Teachers’ thought processes, in M.C. Wittrock (ed.), Third Handbook of Research on Teaching, New York, Macmillan, pp. 255–296, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. Clements, D.H., Nastasi, B.K., Social and cognitive interactions in educational computer environments, American Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 1998, pp. 87–106.Google Scholar
  9. Clements, D.H., Effects of LOGO and CAI Environments on Cognition and Creativity, Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 309–318, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clements, D.H., Gullo, D.F., Effects of Computer Programming on Young Children’s Cognition, Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1051–1058, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clements, D.H., Longitudinal study of the effects of Logo programming on cognitive abilities and achievement, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3(1), 1987.Google Scholar
  12. Close et Butler, Children’s problem solving processes in LOGO, communication at congress EUROLOG, Dublin, 3–6 September 1987.Google Scholar
  13. Crahay, M., De l’épistémologie génétique à l’action éducative, Paris, PUF, 1989.Google Scholar
  14. Crahay, M., Lafontaine, D. (eds), L’art et la science de l’enseignement, Bruxelles, Editions Labor, 1986 (coll. Education 2000).Google Scholar
  15. De Landsheere, G., E. Bayer, Comment les maîtres enseignent. Analyse des interactions verbales, Bruxelles, Direction générale de l’Organisation des Etudes, Pédagogie et Recherche, n°l, 1981, 4e éd.Google Scholar
  16. De Landsheere, G., Introduction à la recherche en éducation, Liège, G. Thone, 1976, 4e édition.Google Scholar
  17. Denis, B., Manuel LOGOWR1TER illustré. Liège, Service de Technologie de l’Education de l’Université, 1988.Google Scholar
  18. Denis, B., Quels sont les projets privilégiés par les utilisateurs de LOGO? Liège, Service de Technologie de l’Education de l’Université, 1988.Google Scholar
  19. Denis, B., Robotique pédagogique et formation des enseignants, communication à l’Université d’Eté de la Commission des Communautés Européennes, Ghent, September 1988.Google Scholar
  20. Denis, B., Technologie de contrôle et LOGO. La robotique, ses enjeux, ses modalités, in Education-Tribune Libre, September 1987, 208, pp. 61–67.Google Scholar
  21. Denis, B., Vers une auto-régulation des conduites d’animation en milieu LOGO, Université de Liège, Thèse de doctorat non publiée, 1990.Google Scholar
  22. Denis, B., Hardy, J.-L., Programming action analysis in LOGO for environmental achievement evaluation, Liège, Laboratoire de Pédagogie expérimentale de l’Université, 1985.Google Scholar
  23. Doise, W., Mugny, G., Le développement social de l’intelligence, Paris, Inter Editions, 1981.Google Scholar
  24. Doyle, W., Powder, G.A., Classroom ecology: Some concerns about a neglected dimension of research on teaching, Contemporary Education, Spring 1975, 156(3), 183–188.Google Scholar
  25. Doyle, W., Paradigms for research on teaching effectiveness, in L.S. Shulman (ed.), Review of Research in Education, (vol. 5), Itasca, III, Peacock, 1978, p. 188.Google Scholar
  26. Doyle, W., Student mediating responses in teaching effectiveness, final report, Texas, North Texas State University, Department of Education, 1980.Google Scholar
  27. Emihovich H C., Miller, G.E., Learning Logo: The social context of cognition, J. Curriculum Studies, 20(1), 57–70, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Emihovich H C., Miller, G.E., Effects of Logo and CAI on black first grader’s achievement reflectivity, and self-esteem, The Elementary School Journal, 88(5), 1988.Google Scholar
  29. Eyre, R., Control technology in the classroom, Journal of British LOGO User’s group, Spring 1989, pp. 5–7.Google Scholar
  30. Fischer, K.W., A theory of cognitive development: the control and construction of hierarchies of skills, Psychological Review, 1980, 87, 477–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Flanders, N.A., Interaction analysis in the classroom: a manual for observers, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, 1966.Google Scholar
  32. Gage, N.L., Comment tirer un meilleur parti des recherches sur les processus d’enseignement? In: M. Crahay, D. Lafontaine (1986), pp. 411–434.Google Scholar
  33. Gilbert, A, Formation d’animateurs à l’utilisation de grilles d’observation en vue de réguler leurs conduites, Université de Liège, Mémoire de licence en sciences de l’éducation, 1990.Google Scholar
  34. Giordan, A., Une pédagogie pour les sciences expérimentales, Paris, Centurion, 1978, Collection Paidoguides.Google Scholar
  35. Giovannini, M.L., Denis, B., Sougné, J., Projet pilote LEGO-LOGO, Rapport, Universita degli Studi di Bologna (Italia), Université de Liège, 1988.Google Scholar
  36. Giovannini, M.-L., Lodini, E., Projet I.D.A.: expérience de Bologne, Communication à l’Université d’été des Communautés européennes, “les N.T.I. et l’enseignement primaire”, Liège, 1985.Google Scholar
  37. Hardy, J.-L., Pourquoi LOGO dans un contexte éducatif? Bruxelles, Labor, De Boeck, 1985.Google Scholar
  38. Hersen, M., Barlow, D.H., Single case experimental designs, strategies for studying behavioral change, New York, Pergamon Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  39. Hoyles, C., Noss, R., Children working in a structured LOGO environment: from doing to understanding, Recherches en didactique des Mathématiques, 8, 131–174, 1987.Google Scholar
  40. Leclercq, D., La fonction régulatrice de l’évaluation vue sous l’angle de l’implication de l’étudiant. In: Education-Tribune Libre, Bruxelles, no 159, 1976, 65–75.Google Scholar
  41. Leclercq, D., Quelle technologie de l’éducation dans une société technologique?, Document présenté au Congrès International d’Education et de technologie, Vancouver, May 1986.Google Scholar
  42. Leclercq, D., L’ordinateur et les défis de l’apprentissage, in Horizon, 13, November 1987.Google Scholar
  43. Leclercq, D., Introduction à la Technologie de l’Education, Liège: Service de Technologie de l’Education, Université de Liège, 1992a.Google Scholar
  44. Leclercq, D., The validity, the reliability, and the sensitivity of self-assessment. In: D. Leclercq, J. Bruno (eds.). Item banking: interactive testing and self-assessment. NATO ASI Series F, Vol. 112. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Matos, F. J., The construction of the Concept of Variable in a LOGO Environment: A Case Study, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference Psychology of Mathematics Education, London, 1986.Google Scholar
  46. Medley, D.M., The effectiveness of teachers. In: Peterson, Walberg, Research on teaching, McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1979.Google Scholar
  47. Nonnon, P., Laboratoire d’initiation aux sciences assisté par ordinateur, Université de Montréal: Faculté des Sciences de l’Education, 1986.Google Scholar
  48. Ocko, S., Resnick, M., Integrating LEGO with LOGO. Making connections with computers and children, The Media Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1987.Google Scholar
  49. Orban, M., La fonction d’enseignant: mutations et perspectives, Extrait du rapport FAST “Les nouvelles technologiques à l’école”. Quelles utilisations de l’ordinateur, Recherche commanditée par le Ministère belge de la Politique scientifique, September 1986.Google Scholar
  50. Papert, S., Jaillissement de l’esprit, Paris, Flammarion, 1981.Google Scholar
  51. Papert, S., Microworlds: transforming education. Paper presented at the ITT Key Issues Conference held at the Annenberg School of Communications of the University of Southern California, 14 March, 1984.Google Scholar
  52. Papert, S., Teaching children thinking, Cambridge, MIT. A.I. Laboratory, LOGO memo n° 2, October 1971.Google Scholar
  53. Piaget, J., L’équilibration des structures cognitives, Paris, PUF, EEG, XXXIII, 1975.Google Scholar
  54. Piaget, J., La psychologie de l’intelligence, Paris, Colin, 1956.Google Scholar
  55. Resnick, M., LEGO-LOGO: Learning through and about Design, The Media Laboratory, MIT, Paper presented at the 1989 AEREA Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
  56. Resnick, M., Ocko S., Papert, S., LEGO, LOGO and Design, The Media Laboratory, MIT, Paper presented at the 1989 AEREA Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
  57. Robinson, M.A., Feldman, P., Uhlig, G.E., The effects of Logo in the elementary classroom: an analysis of selected recent dissertation research, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama 36688, in Education, 107(4), 434–442, 1987.Google Scholar
  58. Romainville, M., Une analyse critique de l’initiation à l’informatique: quels apprentissages et quels transferts? In: Colloque francophone sur la didactique de l’informatique: Actes-version distribuée aux participants, Paris, 1–3 September 1988.Google Scholar
  59. Rosenshine, B., Furst, N., Use of direct observation to study teaching. In R. Travers (ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Teaching, Rand McNally, 1973.Google Scholar
  60. Séron, X., Lambert, J.-L., Van der Linden, M., La modification du comportement, Théorie, Pratique, Ethique, Bruxelles, Mardaga, 1977.Google Scholar
  61. Sougné, J., Les primitives LEGO-LOGO français (logiciel), Liège, Service de Technologie de l’Education de l’Université, 1989.Google Scholar
  62. Sougné, J., LOGO-SCAN, A tool kit to analyse LOGO programs. Paper presented at ICTE, March 1990, 313–315.Google Scholar
  63. Tetenbaum, T.J., Mulkeen, T.A., LOGO and the teaching of problem solving: A call for a moratorium, Educational Technology, November 1984.Google Scholar
  64. Texier, A., Des ailes pour la tortue, Paris, Eyrolles, 1986.Google Scholar
  65. Thirion, A.-M., Evaluation de la recherche-action. In: Problèmes de l’éducation préscolaire, Strasbourg, Conseil de l’Europe, 1975, pp.232–243.Google Scholar
  66. Valcke, M., The integration of Logo programming in the curriculum of the primary school, outline and example of an innovation strategy, EDIF, State University Ghent.Google Scholar
  67. Walker, D. F., Logo needs research: a response to Papert’s paper, Educational Researcher, June–July 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brigitte Denis
    • 1
  1. 1.Service de Technologie de l’EducationUniversité de Liège au Sart-TilmanLiègeBelgium

Personalised recommendations