You are here:

Poem Generator: A comparative quantitative evaluation of a microworlds-based learning approach for teaching English
ARTICLE

, University of South Wales, UK, United Kingdom

IJEDICT Volume 11, Number 2, ISSN 1814-0556 Publisher: Open Campus, The University of the West Indies, West Indies

Abstract

This paper is a comparative quantitative evaluation of an approach to teaching poetry in English that employs a ‘guided discovery’ pedagogy using computer-based microworlds. It uses an experimental design in order to measure performance gains in computational thinking and poetic thinking following a microworld-based intervention in English lessons. Preliminary findings reveal a distinct increase in computational thinking and poetic thinking performance for learners who participated in the intervention. There is also some evidence, though this requires further research, to suggest a relationship between high performance in computational thinking and high performance in poetic thinking.

Citation

Jenkins, C. (2015). Poem Generator: A comparative quantitative evaluation of a microworlds-based learning approach for teaching English. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 11(2),. Open Campus, The University of the West Indies, West Indies. Retrieved December 13, 2018 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Cohen, L., Manion, L. And Morrison, K. (2011) Research Methods in Education. 7th edn. Kindle format [e-book reader]. Available at http://www.amazon.co.uk (Accessed 6 November
  2. Donaldson, G. (2015) Independent Review of the Curriculum and Assessment Arrangements in Wales. Available at: http://gov.wales/docs/dcells/publications/150317-successful-futuresen.pdf
  3. Estyn. (2010) Inspection under section 10 of the Schools Inspection Act 1996: School X. Cardiff: Estyn.
  4. ICT Steering Group (2013) The ICT Steering Group’s Report to the Welsh Government. Available at: http://learning.wales.gov.uk/docs/learningwales/publications/ 131003-ict-steeringgroup-report DASHDASH
  5. Macefield, R. (2007) ‘Usability Studies and the Hawthorne Effect’, Journal of Usability Studies, 2(3), pp. 145-154.
  6. Monig, J. And Harvey, B. (2009) ‘Bringing “No Ceiling” to Scratch: Can One Language Serve Kids and Computer Scientists?’, Constructionism 2010, Paris, France, 16-21 August. Paris, France: AUP [Online]. Available at: http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~bh/BYOB.pdf
  7. Muijs, D. (2011) Doing Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS. 2nd ed. London: Sage.
  8. Papert, S. (1980) Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: BasicBooks.
  9. Papert, S. (1987) ‘Information Technology and Education: Computer Criticism Vs. Technocentric Thinking’, Educational Author, 16(1), pp. 22–30.
  10. Papert, S. (2008) Hard Fun. Available at http://www.papert.org/articles/HardFun.html. (Accessed:
  11. Resnick, M., Kafai, Y., Maloney, J., Burd, L., Rusk, N. And Silverman, B. (2004) ‘Scratch: A Sneak Preview’, Second International Conference on Creating, Connecting and Collaborating through Computing, Kyoto, Japan, 29–30 January. Kyoto, Japan: C5’04 [Online]. Available at: http://llk.media.mit.edu/projects/scratch/ScratchSneakPreview.pdf
  12. Resnick, M. And Brennan, K. (2012) ‘New Frameworks for Studying and Assessing the Development of Computational Thinking’, Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada, 13-17 April. Washington, DC: AERA [Online]. Available at: http://web.media.mit.edu/~kbrennan/ Files/Brennan_Resnick_AERA2012_CT.pdf (Accessed 28 October 2013).
  13. Rieber, L. (1992) ‘Computer-Based Microworlds: A Bridge Between Constructivism and Direct Instruction’, Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), pp. 93–106.
  14. Rieber, L. (2004) ‘Microworlds’ in Donassen, D. (ed.) Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 583-603.
  15. Selwyn, N. (2014) Distrusting Educational Technology: Critical Questions for Changing Times. London and New York: Routledge.
  16. Sharples, M. (1985) Cognition, Computers and Creative Writing. West Sussex: Ellis Horwood.
  17. Weintrop, D. And Wilensky, U. (2013) ‘RoboBuilder: A Computational Thinking Game’, Proceedings of the 44th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Denver, CO, 6–9 March. New York: ACM [Online] Available at: http://ccl.northwestern.edu/papers/2013/ RB_Comp_Thinking_Game.pdf (Accessed: 27
  18. 2014).Wing, J. (2006) ‘Computational Thinking’, Communications of the ACM, 49(3), pp. 33–35.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.