{"title":"儿童在协作设计情境中使用技术的生态分析","authors":"Dhvani Toprani, Marcela Borge","doi":"10.1111/jcal.13119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>In this paper, we extend findings from previous iterations of a design-based project called ThinkerSpaces design studios that promotes human-centred design among children. ThinkerSpaces design studios is a play-based afterschool club that follows principles of embedded design by prioritising learner agency, exploration and ongoing reflection for the purpose of improvement.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>In this study, we wanted to examine the difference in collaborative interactions across different technological conditions and the learning outcomes these conditions provided. Thus, we created three comparative technology conditions, that is, physical, screen and mixed technologies, each of which represented a collaborative learning environment dominated by a particular kind of technology. We ran three different sections of the club to vary these technology conditions and control when we introduced them. We use a mixed-methods approach to analyse the data and capture distinct aspects of the learning ecology to understand the following questions: (RQ1) How do collaborative interactions differ as young learners engage with different technologies; and (RQ2) What does productive and unproductive talk looked like across conditions and what learning opportunities do they provide. Our population included 36 third to seventh grade learners enrolled across three club section. Learners were placed into four triads in each section for a period of 14–18 weeks.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>We found that physical technologies produced the most productive talk, followed by the mixed technology condition. Screen-based technologies produced the most unproductive talk. However, when we further investigated unproductive talk, we discovered that unproductive talk supported different forms of agency and creativity that facilitated learners' ability to develop digital fluency. Students also learned how to regulate collaborative activity around technology. We use these findings to propose changes in technology integration approaches in teaching and learning.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>We end the paper by proposing a collective technology integration framework that helps facilitators design learning environments that promote learner agency in the process of technology integration.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48071,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Computer Assisted Learning","volume":"41 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ecological Analysis of Technology Use Among Children in Collaborative Design Contexts\",\"authors\":\"Dhvani Toprani, Marcela Borge\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jcal.13119\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>In this paper, we extend findings from previous iterations of a design-based project called ThinkerSpaces design studios that promotes human-centred design among children. ThinkerSpaces design studios is a play-based afterschool club that follows principles of embedded design by prioritising learner agency, exploration and ongoing reflection for the purpose of improvement.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>In this study, we wanted to examine the difference in collaborative interactions across different technological conditions and the learning outcomes these conditions provided. Thus, we created three comparative technology conditions, that is, physical, screen and mixed technologies, each of which represented a collaborative learning environment dominated by a particular kind of technology. We ran three different sections of the club to vary these technology conditions and control when we introduced them. We use a mixed-methods approach to analyse the data and capture distinct aspects of the learning ecology to understand the following questions: (RQ1) How do collaborative interactions differ as young learners engage with different technologies; and (RQ2) What does productive and unproductive talk looked like across conditions and what learning opportunities do they provide. Our population included 36 third to seventh grade learners enrolled across three club section. Learners were placed into four triads in each section for a period of 14–18 weeks.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Findings</h3>\\n \\n <p>We found that physical technologies produced the most productive talk, followed by the mixed technology condition. Screen-based technologies produced the most unproductive talk. However, when we further investigated unproductive talk, we discovered that unproductive talk supported different forms of agency and creativity that facilitated learners' ability to develop digital fluency. Students also learned how to regulate collaborative activity around technology. We use these findings to propose changes in technology integration approaches in teaching and learning.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Contribution</h3>\\n \\n <p>We end the paper by proposing a collective technology integration framework that helps facilitators design learning environments that promote learner agency in the process of technology integration.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48071,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Computer Assisted Learning\",\"volume\":\"41 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Computer Assisted Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.13119\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Computer Assisted Learning","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.13119","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Ecological Analysis of Technology Use Among Children in Collaborative Design Contexts
Background
In this paper, we extend findings from previous iterations of a design-based project called ThinkerSpaces design studios that promotes human-centred design among children. ThinkerSpaces design studios is a play-based afterschool club that follows principles of embedded design by prioritising learner agency, exploration and ongoing reflection for the purpose of improvement.
Methods
In this study, we wanted to examine the difference in collaborative interactions across different technological conditions and the learning outcomes these conditions provided. Thus, we created three comparative technology conditions, that is, physical, screen and mixed technologies, each of which represented a collaborative learning environment dominated by a particular kind of technology. We ran three different sections of the club to vary these technology conditions and control when we introduced them. We use a mixed-methods approach to analyse the data and capture distinct aspects of the learning ecology to understand the following questions: (RQ1) How do collaborative interactions differ as young learners engage with different technologies; and (RQ2) What does productive and unproductive talk looked like across conditions and what learning opportunities do they provide. Our population included 36 third to seventh grade learners enrolled across three club section. Learners were placed into four triads in each section for a period of 14–18 weeks.
Findings
We found that physical technologies produced the most productive talk, followed by the mixed technology condition. Screen-based technologies produced the most unproductive talk. However, when we further investigated unproductive talk, we discovered that unproductive talk supported different forms of agency and creativity that facilitated learners' ability to develop digital fluency. Students also learned how to regulate collaborative activity around technology. We use these findings to propose changes in technology integration approaches in teaching and learning.
Contribution
We end the paper by proposing a collective technology integration framework that helps facilitators design learning environments that promote learner agency in the process of technology integration.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Computer Assisted Learning is an international peer-reviewed journal which covers the whole range of uses of information and communication technology to support learning and knowledge exchange. It aims to provide a medium for communication among researchers as well as a channel linking researchers, practitioners, and policy makers. JCAL is also a rich source of material for master and PhD students in areas such as educational psychology, the learning sciences, instructional technology, instructional design, collaborative learning, intelligent learning systems, learning analytics, open, distance and networked learning, and educational evaluation and assessment. This is the case for formal (e.g., schools), non-formal (e.g., workplace learning) and informal learning (e.g., museums and libraries) situations and environments. Volumes often include one Special Issue which these provides readers with a broad and in-depth perspective on a specific topic. First published in 1985, JCAL continues to have the aim of making the outcomes of contemporary research and experience accessible. During this period there have been major technological advances offering new opportunities and approaches in the use of a wide range of technologies to support learning and knowledge transfer more generally. There is currently much emphasis on the use of network functionality and the challenges its appropriate uses pose to teachers/tutors working with students locally and at a distance. JCAL welcomes: -Empirical reports, single studies or programmatic series of studies on the use of computers and information technologies in learning and assessment -Critical and original meta-reviews of literature on the use of computers for learning -Empirical studies on the design and development of innovative technology-based systems for learning -Conceptual articles on issues relating to the Aims and Scope
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
