EdTech 597 My First Mobile App

During week 3 of EdTech 597 – Mobile Apps Design for Teaching and Learning, we got to dive into the App Inventor book and start creating. App Inventor utilizes blocks to represent the necessary code to create an app. Think fitting the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle together. You can’t force the wrong pieces together and expect to end up with the desired image. I took EdTech 597 – Introduction to Edutainment in Spring 2013. This class introduced me to Scratch, an animation software also created at MIT. Scratch allows the user to create animated stories, quizzes and games. The code for the animation is also represented by blocks that fit on a specific manner. With my exposure to Scratch, I felt that I had a slight advantage when it came to working with App Inventor.

My first mobile app was to recreate App Inventor’s “Pet the Kitty” app. It took me less than an hour to read, load the software and arrange the code properly to make this app. I am not sure who was more thrilled by the app. Me for being able to create such a simple app so quickly or my kids who got a kick out of me making the phone meow like a cat. After creating the app as instructed in the App Inventor book, I devised ways to modify it by changing the kitty picture, adding an additional sound, and causing the background color to change when a different action occurs.

The initial screen image of “Pet the Kitty”

Here is a picture of the initial screen image and the QR code to view this modified “Pet the Kitty” app. This app will only work on the Android platform and will require that your phone will allow apps to be downloaded from places other than the Google Play Store (Android Market).

QR Code to upload “Pet the Kitty” mobile app

EdTech 597 Instructional Elements of Cartoons

Source: Retrieved from http://www.timdavies.org.uk/files/cartoons.jpg

Cartoons are simple, non-technological forms of edutainment. The following elements make cartoons an effective educational tool in any classroom. Cartoons are

• illustrative
• analogous
• humorous
• offer social constructivism opportunities

Illustrative

A cartoon’s illustrative element make cartoons an excellent entertaining medium for any classroom, regardless of student age, learning abilities or subject matter. The visual nature of cartoons means that a lot of supplemental text is not always necessary. This humorous cartoon about Global Warming only requires two words.

Source: Clay Bennett cartoons retrieved from http://www.lurieunaward.com/citation8_2007.html

Comic books would not be in existence if it weren’t for a cartoon’s illustrative nature. Comic books can be strictly for entertainment purposes or they can be an edutainment tool utilized by any teacher. This example is a comic book that first appeared in Nature magazine. This issue was about synthesizing DNA.

Source: Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/nature/comics/syntheticbiologycomic/index.html

Analogous

Cartoon’s also have an analogous element allowing the reader to make connections between new and already acquired knowledge. The use of puns in cartoons is a common method for making such connections. The example demonstrates the meanings for the word “right”.

Source: Retrieved from http://cdn2.listsoplenty.com/listsoplenty-cdn/pix/uploads/2010/09/shark-attack-cartoon-pun.jpg

This example uses analogy to compare the definitions of a high impact and low impact papers.

Source: Retrieved from http://chemoton.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/high-low-impact-papers-vadlocom.gif

Humorous

Cartoons contain the element of humor. This element is effective in motivating a student to not only make connections between new and acquired knowledge, but also to provide the learner with an opportunity to recall the material learned at a later date. Though this Calvin and Hobbes example won’t help a student learn Newton’s First Law of Motion, it can help remind teachers to better assess their test questions.

Source: Retrieved from http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/calvin-on-scientific-law.gif

Social constructivism

Cartoons offer students with social learning opportunities through the use of discussions on a cartoon’s content. As a result, student learning is reinforced due to the interactions occur within the group.

Source: Retrieved from http://alisoncollet.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/social-constructivism-cartoon1.jpg

Conclusion

By their nature, cartoons are effective teaching tools. Their illustrative and humorous elements grab a student’s attention. Their analogous element allows students to make real-world connections. And their social constructivism element allows students to collaborate and form their own meanings.

EdTech 597 Course Reflection

As I progress the Masters of Educational Technology program I have shifted my focus from wanting to be an instructor who implements technology into their classroom to someone who wants to create educational materials that utilize technology. For me, this course on Edutainment was really more theory based with a lot of emphasis on various learning theories and their role in creating and utilizing different types of edutainment. Initially I was dismayed as I was excited to jump in headfirst and get my hands dirty in creating different types of materials. However, by the end of the semester, I have come to appreciate the time we took reading and discussing different learning theories and their role in the area of edutainment.

According to Rapeepisarn, Wong, Fung, & Depickere (2006), edutainment is learning through playing and dependent on technology. I prefer Resnick’s (2004) term for edutainment, “playful learning.” Children by nature play and they learn while playing. This play begins to build the foundation of knowledge that is eventually used for more advanced learning (Zin & Zain, 2010). The intended use of edutainment is to supplement curriculum versus being a substitute for curriculum (Zin & Zain, 2010). Edutainment is not intended to simply “pour” facts into a child and assume they will passively absorb the material (Golinkoff, Hirsh-Pasek, & Singer, 2006). In this course, we had the opportunity to create a few edutainment artifacts.

Edutainment Artifact #1 – Comic Strips as Edutainment

The intended audience of my cartoon was an introductory chemistry student. The cartoons included five chemistry related jokes introducing the student to some definitions and the names of a few elements.

Edutainment Artifact #2 – Educational Videos as Edutainment

The video I created for this course is on climate and weather that is appropriate for the sixth grade level. It’s intended use is to provide definitions to terms and promote classroom discussion.

Edutainment Artifact #3 – Games as Edutainment

I used Scratch software to create a quiz-like game to teach survey of organic chemistry nomenclature of alkanes and alkenes. The quiz/game provides the students with feedback and the ability to score points to win.

Edutainment Artifact #4 – Lesson Plan Utilizing Edutainment

My lesson plan is the first part in a series of lessons to teach sixth grade students about weather. The lesson involves the use of two instructional videos and ends with students making a weather sock to determine the direction the wind is blowing from.

Conclusion

Advances in technology has and will continue to change all of our lives. To effectively teach our education system must adapt to new forms of technology as well as the learning characteristics of the next generation. Edutainment in the classroom can help by creating students who are lifelong learners capable of effective problem solving.

REFERENCES

Golinkoff, R., Hirsh-Pasek K., &  Singer , D. (2006). Why play = learning: a challenge for parents and educators. In D. Singer, R. Golinkoff & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play = Learning: How Play Motivates and Enhances Children’s Cognitive and Social-Emotional Growth. (pp. 3-12). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rapeepisarn, K., Wong, K. W., Fung, C. C., and Depickere, A. (2006). Similarities and differences between “learn through play” and “edutainment”. In Proceedings of the 3rd Australasian conference on Interactive entertainment (IE 2006), ACM press, pp 28–32.

Resnick, M. (2004) Edutainment? No thanks. I prefer playful learning. Associazione Civita Report on Edutainment.

Zin, H. M., & Zain, NZM, (2010). The effects of edutainment towards students achievements. In Proceedings of Regional Conference on Knowledge Integration in ICT. pp 64-72.

EdTech 597 Creating in Scratch

http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/10187761/

This interactive quiz was built using Scratch.  Scratch is a very cool edutainment tool that is well worth exploring. The Scratch tutorials don’t include a lot of specific details on coding and instead use a lot of pictures with little text. However, the Scratch community is great at helping the beginning user go beyond basic coding.

EdTech 597 Application of Edutainment Theories

Select more than two edutainment theories and describe how you are going to apply them in your teaching, based on your reflections on their implications for teaching and learning.

The learning theory I tend to use the most in my classroom is the motivational theory. Students often come into a chemistry class filled with anxiety because they tend to think chemistry is hard and boring. From our first class meeting, it is my responsibility as the instructor to change this way of thinking by getting their attention and making them excited to learn. This might involve an in-class demonstration or just providing examples of how the material we are covering relates to the real world. I like to make students feel comfortable with the material by breaking problem solving sessions down into smaller bits. This allows students to obtain more specific feedback as their problem solving skills go from simple to more complex. It also allows me to see at what point a student may be having difficulty and at what point in the problem solving process I might need to revisit.

In chemistry laboratories students utilize a constructivist pedagogy in the form of problem-based learning (PBL) strategies. Traditional laboratories, or so-called recipe labs, have students performing instructor-driven exercises. PBL laboratories involve a pre-lab session to initiate the student to the ‘what’, ‘why’ and ‘how’ of the experiment and make connections between lecture and laboratory material. During the laboratory session, students work cooperatively in small groups to complete and discuss the experiment. To assess learning, students turn in a summary of the data collected, problems solved, peer assessment of group participation and individual reflection. This student-centered approach to learning allows the student to ‘construct’ their own knowledge.

The flow theory really resonated with me. I have not applied it to the classroom, however, I regularly apply it to my own running. While running ultramarathons, the biggest key to success is to keep your head in the game. Or as it turns out “…gain control over mental processes” (Vedpuriswar, n.d.). When the ultrarunner has this kind of conscious control, time seems to disappear and external distractions, such as pain or tiredness, go unnoticed.

Vedpuriswar, A. V. (n.d.). [Review of the book Flow: The psychology of optimal experience, by M. Cziksentmihalyi] Retrieved February 28, 2013 from http://www.vedpuriswar.org/book_review/Flow.doc

 

EdTech 597 Edutainment Theories

Describe your understanding of edutainment theories in five paragraphs: Flow, Situated Learning, Constructivist pedagogies, Activity theory and motivation theory.

Flow Theory

The flow theory explains self-regulated learning in adults (Rieber, 1996). When adults are so engaged in an activity, they “flow” with the activity in a spontaneous manner (Rieber, 1996). The flow theory is not limited to learning environments and can explain why a person will participate in goal oriented tasks or activities (Vedpuriswar, n.d). According to Rieber (1996), learning under the flow theory is achieved when an activity meets one or more of the following eight components:

• the challenge of the activity is matches the user’s current skill and/or ability;

• the user’s attention is completely absorbed in the activity;

• the goal(s) of the activity are clear to the user;

• the activity provides the user with clear and consistent feedback while the user works at reaching the goal(s) of the activity;

• the user is freed (even if only temporarily) from outside worries or frustrations because the user is so absorbed in the activity;

• the user feels in complete control of the activity;

• the user does not feel self-conscious while performing the activity;

• the passage of time is unnoticed while the user participates in the activity.

These elements make the flow theory an ideal learning theory in the edutainment field as these elements are innately found in games.

Situated Learning

Situated learning is defined as “…the notion of learning knowledge and skills in contexts that reflect the way the knowledge will be useful in real life” (Herrington & Oliver, 2000). Successful situated learning models all share the following characteristics:

• apprenticeship

• multiple practice

• collaboration

• coaching and scaffolding

• reflection

• articulation

Virtual reality and hypermedia tools allow educators to bring near-authentic activities into the classroom through the use of simulations, computer games, and multimedia presentations (Herrington & Oliver, 1995). These medium allow students to experience and interact with the environment and other students. During the collaboration process, students can discuss, debate and defend their acquired knowledge. The instructor can also offer advice and/or support to students. Afterwards, students create their own knowledge and memories of the activity (Herrington & Oliver, 1995).

Constructivist Pedagogy

In the constructivist theory, the learner generates knowledge as learning takes place. This is a social learning theory that is strengthened through learner reflection, metacognition and inquiry (Dangel, Guyton & McIntyre, 2004). More specifically, the constructivist pedagogy suggests “(a) instruction must take as its starting point the knowledge, attitudes, and interests students bring to the learning situation, and (b) instruction must be designed to provide experiences that effectively interact with the characteristics of the students so that they may construct their own understanding” (Dangel, Guyton & McIntyre, 2004). The common theme in constructivist pedagogies are student centered learning environments, authentic and purposeful interactions among all classroom participants (including the teacher), and active engagement in academic activities (Dangel, Guyton & McIntyre, 2004).

Activity Theory

The activity theory suggests that learning occurs as a result of participating in an activity (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999). In the activity theory, there is a synergistic effect between learning and activity. As the learner acts, knowledge is acquired. This in turn affects the learner’s actions, which will change their knowledge, and so on (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999). The central theme of the activity theory is participating in an activity. Thus, this is a student centered theory  with a social context (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999). This interaction can be a student-student interaction or a student-teacher interaction (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999). The use of artifacts is also an important element of the activity theory (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999).

Motivation Theory

Motivation theory looks to create intrinsically motivated life-long learners (Small, 1997). According to Keller (2008), the motivation to learn is promoted by the following five principles

• the arousal of the learner’s curiosity due to a perceived gap in their current knowledge;

• the learner perceives the new knowledge to be meaningful and related to their own goals’

• the learner believes they can master the task at hand;

• the learner anticipates and experiences satisfying outcomes from a learning activity;

• the learner consciously chooses to stay on task.

The ARCS model was created to address these five principles when designing motivating instruction (Small, 1997). According to Small (1997) and Shellnut (1998), the ARCS model stands for

• A – Attention strategies to arouse and sustain learner curiosity and interest;

• R – Relevance links the content to the learner’s needs and wants;

• C – Confidence to achieve success in completing the task;

• S – Satisfaction strategies providing extrinsic and intrinsic reinforcement for the learner’s efforts.

REFERENCES

Dangel, J. R., Guyton, E., & McIntyre, C. B. (2004). Constructivist pedagogy in primary classroom: Learning from teachers and their classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 24, 237-245.

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (1995). Critical Characteristics of Situated Learning: Implications for the Instructional Design of Multimedia. in Pearce, J. Ellis A. (ed) ASCILITE95 Conference Proceedings (253-262). Melbourne: University of Melbourne

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 48(3), 23-48.

Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Research & Development, 47(1), 61-79.

Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning. Distance Education, 29(2), 175-185.

Rieber, .L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play. Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(2), 43-58.

Shellnut, B. J. (1998). John Keller: A motivating influence in the field of instructional systems design. Unpublished manuscript, Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. Retrieved February 28, 2013 from http://arcsmodel.com/pdf/Biographical%20Information.pdf

Small, R. V. (1997). Motivation in instructional design. ERIC Digest. Retrieved February 28, 2013 from http://www.ericdigests.org/1998-1/motivation.htm

Vedpuriswar, A. V. (n.d.). [Review of the book Flow: The psychology of optimal experience, by M. Cziksentmihalyi] Retrieved February 28, 2013 from http://www.vedpuriswar.org/book_review/Flow.doc

Create a Venn (or other) diagram to show your understanding of your chosen theories.

Flow, active and motivational theories are all learning theories that are based accomplishing a goal or desired outcome. With these theories, learning is achieved as a result of completing the activity and reaching the desired goal.

Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy (1999) describe learning in the active theory as “you are what you do.” The active theory and flow theory both have a synergistic effect between learning and activity. As the learner acts, knowledge is acquired. This in turn affects the learner’s actions, which will change their knowledge, and so on (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999). This allows the the activity to evolve with the learner. Thus, keeping the learner’s skill and knowledge adequately matched with the activity. The element, satisfaction, from the ARCS model of motivational theory requires that standards for success remain consistent (Small, 1997). This allows the instructor to evaluate all students on an equal playing field. Therefore, in motivational theory, the standards for the activity will remain the same and not change with the learner.

Flow theory and motivational theory are intrinsically motivating learning theories. The learner is willing to engage in these activities due to its shear pleasure (Okan, 2003; Small, 1997; Vedpuriswar, n.d.). Intrinsically motivated learners become completely immersed in the activity, are not easily distracted by the external environment, and are not self-conscious of their performance (Keller, 2008; Vedpuriswar, n.d). However, the learner must receive immediate feedback if the pleasure state is to continue (Keller, 2008; Vedpuriswar, n.d). In motivational theory, the use of extrinsic rewards that are unrelated to the activity are used (Okan, 2003; Small, 1997). These rewards are used as reinforcement of success for the learner (Small, 1997).

Active theory is based on social context with little to no meaningful activity being accomplished individually (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999). Motivational theory shares the same social context in that it involves collaboration (Keller, 2008). The collaboration can be in the form of student-student and/or teacher-student interactions. Active theory involves a community which sets the rules by which the learner(s) must abide while performing the activity (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999). Furthermore, in active theory, tools are used in the learning process to create some sort of artifact or learning outcome (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999).

REFERENCES

Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Research & Development, 47(1), 61-79.

Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning. Distance Education, 29(2), 175-185.

Okan, Z. (2003). Edutainment: Is learning at risk? British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 255-264.

Small, R. V. (1997). Motivation in instructional design. ERIC Digest. Retrieved February 28, 2013 from http://www.ericdigests.org/1998-1/motivation.htm

Vedpuriswar, A. V. (n.d.). [Review of the book Flow: The psychology of optimal experience, by M. Cziksentmihalyi] Retrieved February 28, 2013 from http://www.vedpuriswar.org/book_review/Flow.doc

EdTech 597 Interaction with Edutainment

Edutainment in the classroom has shown to be effective at attracting students’ attention and facilitating engagement and motivation. However, for edutainment to come through with these claims, the student must want to interact with the product. Today’s generation of learners spend billions of dollars playing entertaining video and computer games (Prensky, 2000). Therefore, if games are going to be incorporated into the classroom, students will not tolerate boring games. These games must fun for students, teachers, parents, and fun administrators (Prensky, 2000). When these products are fun, the resulting learning is more enjoyable, more compelling and more effective (Paraskeva, Mysirlaki, Papagianni, 2009; Prensky, 2001).

Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) are one type of game being introduced to the educational setting. MMORPGs provide a networked, interactive environment in which players collaborate, strategize, plan, and interact with objects, resources and other players (Dickey, 2007; Parasakeva, Mysirlaki, Papagianni, 2009). Learning is a social practice (Delwiche, 2006; McNeese, 2007). MMORPGs allow learners to share information, test understandings, and reflect on the constructed knowledge with each other (Dickey, 2007).

When I was an undergraduate student in chemistry, we learned to predict the structure of an unknown molecule using various spectral data that we obtained ourselves. My organic chemistry class had approximately 40 students, thus this activity was not expensive and provided every student a hands-on experience with the instrumentation. Today, however, many universities and colleges have large lectures of 100 or more students. Thus, this method is not feasible from a cost and time perspective. The answer is a website to simulate this experience as best as possible. My husband has been trying to get funding for such a website from the National Science Foundation. Originally this site was set up as a repository of data sets. Students would learn how to interpret spectral data by completing drill and kill problem sets. However, this site would be more engaging if it were set up as multi-player learning environment. Students collaboratively interpret the molecular fragments present based on the spectral data provided.  Once these fragments have been established, students can then assemble the molecule. Being a multi-player website means that this learning environment can be extended beyond just a single classroom.

REFERENCES
Delwiche, A. (2006). Massively multiplayer online games (MMOs) in the new media classroom. Educational Technology & Society, 9(3), 160-172.

Dickey, M. D. (2007). Game design and learning: A conjectural analysis of how massively multiple online role-playing games (MMORPGs) foster intrinsic motivation. Education Technology Research & Development, 55(3), 253-273.

Paraskeva, F., Mysirlaki, S., & Papagianni, A. (2010). Multiplayer online games as educational tools: Facing new challenges in learning. Computers & Education, 54, 498-505.

Prensky, M. (2000). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

EdTech 597 Robotics as a Form of Edutainment and How It Teaches

The term “edutainment” describes activities that both educate and entertain. The edutainment activity I have chosen is robotics and more specifically, mobile robotics. Mobile robotics fulfill the following five characteristics of edutainment: educational, entertaining, integrated activity, adequately matched to the learner’s abilities, and promotes acquisition of constructivist knowledge.

First off, robotics offer learners a hands-on, interdisciplinary, collaborative opportunity (Beer, Chiel, & Drushel, 1999). When students build, manipulate and play with robots they learn a variety of engineering and science topics.

Often a course in robotics will culminate in some sort of contest. These entertaining competitions provide learners with intrinsic motivation. Learners engage in the competitions out of the sheer pleasure of the activity (Okan, 2003). Entering a competition also encourages the learner to make the jump from superficial learning the mastery (Dodds, Greenwald, Howard, Tejada, & Weinberg, 2006).

Several mobile robotic kits are available to integrate robotics into curriculum levels K-12, undergraduate and graduate. Learners are better able to grasp the concept of robotics when a hands on opportunity is coupled with any lecture content (Mataric, 2004).

Since robotics can be integrated into any curriculum level, it is important the course be age and skill appropriate. If the course is too simple or too advanced, the learner will become disinterested regardless of how flashy the robot.

Lastly, robotics promotes the acquisition of constructivist knowledge through what Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2007) refers to as situated learning, or learning as a result of sharing ideas and experiences. Knowledge is acquired when student’s construct new understandings about their world through exploration, experimentation, discussion and reflection (Resnick, 2002).

REFERENCES

Beer, R. D., Chiel, H. J., & Drushel, R. F. (1999). Using autonomous robotics to teach science and engineering. Communications of the ACM, 42(6), 85-92.

Dodds, Z., Greenwald, L., Howard, A., Tejada, S., & Weinberg, J. (2006). Components, curriculum, and community: Robots and robotics in undergraduate AI education. AI Magazine, 27(1), 11-22.

Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2007). Third generation educational use of computer games. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(3), 263-281.

Mataric, M. J. (2004). Robotics education for all ages. In Proceedings, AAAI Spring Symposium on Accessible, Hands-on AI and Robotics Education, Palo Alto, CA, Mar 22-24, 2004.

Okam, Z. (2003). Edutainment: Is learning at risk? British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 255-264.

Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 44(2), 43–58.

Resnick, M. (2002). Rethinking learning in the digital age. In G. Kirkman (Ed.), The global information technology report: Readiness for the networked word. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

EdTech 597 Significance of Playing and Learning

What was the significance of playing and learning within Edutainment?

The recent notion of combining education and entertainment has led to the use of two terms: “learn through play” and “edutainment” (Rapeepisarn, Wong, Fung, Depickere, 2006). Rapeepisarn, Wong, Fung, & Depickere (2006) classify edutainment as a form of learn through playing which relies heavily on technology.

Children by nature play and they learn and they learn while playing. This play begins to build the foundation of knowledge that is eventually used for more advanced learning (Zin & Zain, 2010). However, when it comes to the use of edutainment as a means for learning, parents and educators can sometimes become misguided. All too often parent use instructional TV shows and video programs or computer software as substitutes for parenting. Or educators will overuse drill and kill computer programs as substitutes for teaching. This type of approach buys into the idea that a child’s mind is an “empty vessel”. When you pour in the facts, the child passively absorbs the material (Golinkoff, Hirsh-Pasek, & Singer, 2006). The consequences of this teaching strategy can create anxious and perfectionistic students who may in time lack the motivation to learn, have less pride in their achievements and become dependent on adults for their learning. This type of student lacks the ability to learn to learn (Golinkoff, Hirsh-Pasek, & Singer, 2006).

Instead, edutainment should be used to supplement curriculum versus as a substitute for the curriculum (Zin & Zain, 2010). Some examples include:

• Robotic edutainment, where children integrate their knowledge of math and science into a working robot (Resnick, 2004).

• The Oregon Trail video game teaches children about the realities of 19th century pioneer life on the Oregon Trail. In this game, the player takes on the role of a wagon leader who is responsible for guiding a party of settlers across the Oregon Trail in a covered wagon.

• Fetch! Lunch Rush, a PBS augmented reality application designed to teach first and second graders math concepts.

• Wordle, a word cloud that provides a visual depiction of words input by the user. Educators can introduce Wordle as a cognitive mapping tool or simply check for word repetition in an essay.

A Wordle generated from the first week’s assignment.

 

 

REFERENCES

Golinkoff, R., Hirsh-Pasek K., &  Singer , D. (2006). Why play = learning: a challenge for parents and educators. In D. Singer, R. Golinkoff & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play = Learning: How Play Motivates and Enhances Children’s Cognitive and Social-Emotional Growth. (pp. 3-12). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

 

Rapeepisarn, K., Wong, K. W., Fung, C. C., and Depickere, A. (2006). Similarities and differences between “learn through play” and “edutainment”. In Proceedings of the 3rd Australasian conference on Interactive entertainment (IE 2006), ACM press, pp 28–32.

 

Resnick, M. (2004) Edutainment? No thanks. I prefer playful learning. Associazione Civita Report on Edutainment.

 

Zin, H. M., & Zain, NZM, (2010). The effects of edutainment towards students achievements. In Proceedings of Regional Conference on Knowledge Integration in ICT. pp 64-72.

EdTech 597 Characteristics of Edutainment

List at least five characteristics of edutainment (Cartoon or Comic Strip, TV program, movie, and digital game) as a whole in view of learning .

Five characteristics of edutainment include:

1. Educational. Other than being one word in which edutainment is derived, a medium must have an educational purpose or goal if it is effectively convey instruction or information.

2. Entertaining. The second word in which edutainment is derived means the learner will find the medium fun and pleasurable.

3. Integrated activity. The medium must be effectively integrated into a curriculum in which the learner is still provided some sort of guidance by a facilitator of learning (teacher, trainer, mentor). (Golinkoff, M. R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Singer, D. G., 2006; Reiser, 1996; Resnick, 2004 .)

4. Adequately matched to the learners abilities. Learning is not achieved when a medium is either too easy or too difficult for the learner. (Reiser, 1996)

5. Promotes acquisition of constructivist knowledge. Learning occurs when student’s construct new understandings about their world through exploration, experimentation, discussion and reflection. (Golinkoff, M. R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Singer, D. G., 2006; Resnick, 2002.)

REFERENCES

Golinkoff, M. R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Singer, D. G. (2006). Play = learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 44(2), 43–58.

Resnick, M. (2004) Edutainment? No thanks. I prefer playful learning. Associazione Civita Report on Edutainment.

Resnick, M. (2002). Rethinking learning in the digital age. In G. Kirkman (Ed.), The global information technology report: Readiness for the networked word. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.