You are here:

Evaluating the Impact of a Virtual Environment Tool for the English Classroom PROCEEDINGS

, Acadia University, Canada ; , Acadia University, Nova Scotia,Canada, Canada

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in San Diego, CA, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-78-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

A virtual environment based on the identified potential for educational gaming has been developed for teaching the social and political culture typified in Mary Robinson’s Romantic period novel, The Natural Daughter (1799). The multi-user environment allows students to interact with characters in a simulated 18th century England (Bath and London) and thereby develop a deeper, participatory understanding of the context of the novel. While there exists qualitative feedback on the potential for this pedagogical tool in the humanities, the study introduced in this paper uses concept mapping to track the perceived enhancement in learning. This presentation will introduce the virtual environment, discuss the nuances of this differentiated learning style and interpret the results of the concept mapping study.

Citation

Saklofske, J. & MacKinnon, G. (2010). Evaluating the Impact of a Virtual Environment Tool for the English Classroom. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2010--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2355-2359). San Diego, CA, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 19, 2018 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.
  2. Bloom, J. (1990). Contexts of meaning: Young children’s understanding of biological phenomena. International Journal of Science Education 12(5) 549-561.
  3. Conlon, T. (2004). But is our concept map any good?: Classroom experiences with the reasonable fallible analyzer. In A. Cañas, J. Novak& F. González (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping.. Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra.
  4. Costello, P.J.M. (2003). Action research. London: Continuum.
  5. Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Densin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. London, UK: Sage.
  6. Kattoula, E., Verma, G. & Martin-Hansen, L. (2009) Fostering preservice teachers :nature of science” understandings in a Physics course. Journal of College Science Teaching 39(1), 18-26.
  7. Kinchin, I. (2008). The qualitative analysis of concept maps: Some unforeseen consequences and emerging opportunities. In A. Cañas, P. Preiska, M. Ahlberg & J. Novak (Eds.), Concept Mapping: Connecting Educators. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Concept Mapping.. Talin, Estonia & Helsinki, Finland.
  8. Kinchin, I., Hay, D. & Adams, A. (2000). How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational Research 42(1), 43-57.
  9. Lessiter, J., Freeman, J., Keogh, E. & Davidoff, J. (2001). Presence teleoper. Virtual Environ. 10, 282.
  10. Lopez, M. (2008). Propositional analysis model to the comparison of expert teachers’ concept maps. In A. Cañas, P. Preiska, M. Ahlberg & J. Novak (Eds.), Concept Mapping: Connecting Educators. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Concept Mapping.. Talin, Estonia & Helsinki, Finland.
  11. Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  12. Morgan, D. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  13. Novak, J. (1981) Applying learning psychology and philosophy to biology teaching. The American Biology Teacher 43(1) 12-20.
  14. Novak, J.D. & Gowin, D.B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  15. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and Evaluation 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  16. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  17. Schaal, S. (2008). Concept mapping in science education assessment: An approach to computer-supported achievement tests in an interdisciplinary hypermedia learning environment. In A. Cañas, P. Preiska, M. Ahlberg & J. Novak (Eds.), Concept Mapping: Connecting Educators. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Concept Mapping.. Talin, Estonia & Helsinki, Finland.
  18. Selwyn, N. (1997). The continuing weaknesses of educational computing research. British Journal of Educational Technology 28(4), 305-307.
  19. Selwyn, N. (2002). Telling tales on technology: Qualitative studies of technology and education. Burlington VT: Ashgate.
  20. Squires, D. (1999). Educational software for constructivist learning environments: Subversive use and volatile design. Educational Technology, 39(3), 48-54.
  21. Stringer, E.T. (1996). Action research: A handbook for practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  22. Witmer, B.G and Singer, M.J. (1998) Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire, Presence 7(3), 225--240.

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.