You are here:

Developing a hierarchy of clicker use for teaching and learning from models of dialogue analysis PROCEEDINGS

, , , University of Manchester, UK, United Kingdom

  • Full Text
  • Citation
  • Save to Collections
  • E-mail
  • Share
  • OpenURL

    • EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Toronto, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-81-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

    Abstract

    Clicker technologies are used in a variety of ways in lectures with large numbers of students. This paper examines the practice of four colleagues who use (or plan to use) this technology with their students and focuses on the introduction of a number dialogue processes afforded by clicker technologies. Subsequent analysis leads to the construction of a hierarchy of the dialogue processes described and a discussion of the different theories of learning which are introduced by way of using this technology

    Citation

    ODonoghue, M., Jardine, R. & Rubner, G. (2010). Developing a hierarchy of clicker use for teaching and learning from models of dialogue analysis. In J. Herrington & C. Montgomerie (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2010--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 2105-2114). Toronto, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved November 17, 2018 from .

    © 2010 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

    View References & Citations Map

    References

    1. Anderson, L.W. And Sosniak, L.A. (1994) Blooms ‘Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: A Forty-year Retrospective (National Society for the Study of Education, University of Chicago Press.
    2. Bates, A.W. (1995) Technology, Open Learning and Distance Education, Routledge, London.
    3. Bates, A.W. And Poole, G. (2003) Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
    4. Bloom, B. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives The Classification of Educational Goals; Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, David McKay Publications.
    5. Bostock, S.(2007) e-Teaching: Engaging Learners through Technology, SEDA Paper 119, SEDA Publication UK.
    6. Brown, P. And Rice, S. (2002) Lecturing: a practical guide, Routledge, London
    7. Gredler, M (2005) Learning and Instruction: Theory into Practice, Fifth Edition, Pearson, New Jersey.
    8. Hattie, J. (1999) Influences on student learning, available online at http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/webdav/site/education/shared/hattie/docs/influences-on-studentlearning.pdf (accessed: December 2009)
    9. Jonassen, D.H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth,(Ed.). Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional technology,Vol. 2 (pp. 215-240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
    10. AssociatesLoudon, M. And Sharp, M. (2006) Online Class Review: Using Streaming-Media Technology, Journal of College Science Teaching, November/December, National Science Teachers Association, pp39-43.
    11. Mayer, R.E. (2001) Multimedia Learning, Cambridge University Press
    12. Mazur, E. (1997) Peer instruction: a user’s manual, Addison Wesley
    13. Moss, R. (1983) Video: the educational challenge, Croom Helm, London
    14. O'Donoghue, M. & O'Steen, B. (2007). Clicking on or off? Lecturers' rationale for using student response systems. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007. Http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/odonoghue.pdf
    15. Ramsden, P. (2003) Learning to teach in Higher Education, first edition, Routledge. Acknowledgements

    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.