Heard this term a few times in the presentation today. Affective teaching is about
(1) Maintain personal values
(2) Promote the need of social interaction
(3) Emotional guidance and counseling
(4) Assist students to become socialization
(5) Provide the local culture feelings and historical context
With the rapidly use of computing, there is now a need to even have such online affective teaching presence. The teacher in me is very much against affective teaching taken over by tcomputer agents. I do agree that teachers can maintain some online affective presence online but at the end of the day, nothing beats interacting face-2-face with the students. I do not wish to see the day when teaching is taken over by computer agents.
What really strikes me today is the use of eyetracking in multimedia related studies. I never know that there is such thing. It can be used in psycholinguistics & reading, developmental psychology and Neuroscience. For more information, you may want to visit this link. Thank to @hychan_edu for sharing this info via twitter. (This is what I call learning in the 21st century!)
Workshop :Application of Innovative Educational Technologies in STEM* education
STEM stands for Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
Hui-Tse HOU, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan
Ying-Tien WU, National Central University, Taiwan
Time : 13 30 – 17 00
Venue : TR205
Date : 26 Nov
This workshop has been a real eye-opener , saying what other countries (like Taiwan, India and Japan) are creating educational-technology related products. Here are some info on the presentation:
Blending Mobile Technologies and Traditional Resources in Mathematical Learning Activities
Håkan SOLLERVALL & Marcelo MILRAD
Enactment (relate self to object) visualization (relate obj to obj)
MathMazing: 3D Gesture Recognition Exergame for Arithmetic Skills
Sameer SAHASRABUDHE, Adeet SHAH, Mohini THAKKAR, Varun THAKKAR & Sridhar IYER
Mathsmazing Kinetic Maths Games
Exercise + Games = Exergames . Gestured based games to excite our learners for multiple intelligence (e/g. logic and spatial)
A Pilot Study: Can Interactive Projectors Enhance Students’ Performance and Interactivity in the Classrooms?
Li-Ying LIU & Meng-Tzu CHENG
Interactive projectors : More interaction as teacher are no longer constrained by whiteboard
Exploring Learners’ Problem-Solving Behaviors in an Educational Game for Computer
Assembly Instruction: A Preliminary Study
Ming-Chaun LI, Huei-Tse HOU, Yi-Syuan Wu, Hao CHEN & Yi-Shiuan CHOU
By NTUST MEG (Mini Educational Game group, e-Learning Research Center, NTUST) in Taiwan.
The Development and Evaluation of the Online Science Fair Inquiry System
Chi-Hsuan MAI, I-Hua CHUNG, Zong-Rong YANG, Li-Jen WANG & Ying-Tien WU
Different Inquiry levels : confirmation, structured inquiry, guided inquiry and open inquiry
Workshop: Cognitive Load (W3)
Organizers: Hsin I YUNG, Fred PAAS
Time : 0900 – 1230
Venue : TR205
Date : 26 Nov
I attended the cognitive load workshop this morning. Why I choose this? Basically, cognitive load has been on my mind since I designing simulations. I concur with one of the presenter Megan Hastie view : “Reducing cognitive load for the students is important in technology-enabled environment“. We, the teachers, have the responsibility of reducing the cognitive load so that our students can commit more cognitive resources on actual learning.
Here are the presentation today . I will update with their links once the papers are uploaded on official workshop.
(1) #WS3-1: The Effect of Stereoscopic to Different Spatial Ability College Students
Sheng-Yao TAI, Yu-Wei WANG, Shih-Chiy YEH & Tzu-Chien LIU
Learn a new term . Stereoscopic means 3D. I think I will sound more atas if I say “stereoscopic”
(2) #WS3-2: Meta-cognitive Skill Training by Serializing Self-Dialogue and Discussion
Kazuhisa SETA, Liang CUI, Mitsuru IKEDA, Noriyuki MATSUDA & Masahiko OKAMOTO
Internal Conversation: Knowledge description _> cognitive conflicts ->knowledge building
(3) #WS3-3: Exploring the Effect of “Color Cueing” on Mobile Learning in Physical Environments
“color cueing” to assist students attend to the important learning information of texts
(4) #WS3-4: Managing Cognitive Load in e-Learning Paradigms using the Synchronous Cyber Classroom and Rigorous Instructional Design
Megan HASTIE, Nian-Shing CHEN & Richard SMITH
Blended Cyber Model : Combination of diff instructional modes , modality and delivery media
(5) #WS3-5: Dictionary Types and Word Meaning Acquisition: Exploring Cognitive Load and Cognitive Processes
Analyzing the reading processes recorded by eyetrackin
Mrs Lee made some curry puffs and sardine puffs. The ratio of the number of curry puffs to the number of sardine puffs was 4 : 3. She made another 65 curry puffs and sold 27 sardine puffs. The ratio became 5 : 3. How many curry puffs did she make?
Strategy : Draw model systematically (e.g., translate each statement into the “model” form). Try to look at the models drawn and adjust accordingly. The challenge is to “simplify” or “reduce” the model into some common parts that we can find the value of the common part. There might be different parts in the model and the trick here is to express the different parts into 1 common part that we can find.
The ratio of the number of curry puffs to the number of sardine puffs was 4 : 3.
Possible questions to ask: Did she bake more curry puffs or sardine puffs? How many parts for curry puff ? How many parts for sardine puffs?
It should be quite easy to draw the model for most of the students.
She made another 65 curry puffs and sold 27 sardine puffs.
Possible questions to ask : What does “made another 65 curry puff more? Do I need to “add” or “take away” for the curry puffs ? What does sold 27 sardine puffs mean? Do I need to “add” or “take away” for the sardine puffs ?
The ratio became 5 : 3.
Possible questions to ask: Did she bake more curry puffs or sardine puffs? How many parts for curry puff ? How many parts for sardine puffs? Should I drawn another 2 bars to represent that ? Are the parts equal for both “before” and “after”?
Now, take a look at the model. What is wrong with the model ? For the curry puffs, does the models show “65 made” ? For the sardine puffs, does the models show “27 sold” ?
There is a need to adjust the model!
Now the model looks like this:
The trick is to find relationship between the red parts and the yellow parts.
For Curry Puffs
5 red parts = 4 yellow parts+ 65
1 red part = 4/5 yellow parts + 13
For Sardine Puffs
3 red parts = 3 yellow parts – 27
1 red part = 1 yellow part – 9
Now, we have 1 red part in common. Redraw the model to show the red part in terms of yellow part
From the diagram , is obvious that
1 part = 13+ 9
That is of course, not the final answer.Continue and try to find what the question is asking for.
Teaching with technology in a Future School in Singapore: A Mathematics teacher’s experience
Over the last few years Singapore Government has been funding the establishment and
operations of a small group of experimental technology-rich schools. These schools were
known as “Future Schools” where teachers were encouraged to experiment with and apply technologies in their practice to enhance teaching and learning in line with the demands of the workplace in the future. One of the authors of this article was engaged as a Mathematics teacher in a Future School over the last four years. This article provides reflection on this experience, outlines issues that facilitated and impeded effectiveness of technology integration, and provides recommendations for teachers, policy-makers and researchers involved with technology integration in school.