The effect of goals on use of educational software

1. The effect of goals on use of educational software Presenter: Che-Yu Lin Advisor: Ming-Puu Chen Date: 2009/09/02 Hussein, Z. & Stern, L. (2008, January). The effect of goals on use of educational software. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 5640-5645). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/29161.

2. Introduction(1/2) • Educational software is designed and built tosupport learning of concepts, rather than to accomplish concrete tasks. • Students who use educational software generally have a motivating goal for usingthe software. • Educational goals may include running the software for review of subject material, for remedial work,for guidance with a specific assessment task, for learning new concepts or information, among others. • Most of the published educationally-oriented evaluation studies focus on learning outcomes, rather than on theprocess whereby students use software to engage with the subject material (Reeves & Hedberg 2003).

3. Introduction(2/2) • We have examining student behavior in different educational contexts, using two different computer-based educational learning tools, and relate this behavior to educational goals. • Two target educational software applications were used in this study: Algorithms in Action (AiA) and SimulationModules for Learning Engineering Designs (SiMLED). • Both AiA and SiMLED are open-ended educationalsoftware applications designed by academic staff at The University of Melbourne. • Both applications allow studentsa considerable amount of freedom with respect to how to use the software to support their learning goals.

4. Algorithms in Action Figure 1: Screenshots of AiA: (a) running the Quicksort algorithm (b) running the 234-Tree algorithm

5. SiMLED Figure 2: Screenshots of SiMLED, Columns Module: (a) the 3D responder and Shape controller is selected (b) theGraph responder and Materials controller is selected

6. Method • Qualitative methods used include observation sessions, semi-structured group interviews and individual interviews. • Quantitative methods included collection and analysis of log files from learning sessions and use of questionnaires.

7. Results(1/2) • Project vs. non-project sessions

8. Results(2/2) • Learning New Material vs. Revision • Direct observation of students during sessions involving unknown algorithms indicated greater concentration and slower pacing. • Task-oriented behaviour of the students, with less attention was given to the surrounding environment and less fidgeting. • Educator vs. Student Goals • The designers of AiA had not foreseen that the software would be used for project-related work at all, but had envisioned AiA primarily as a learning tool for general understanding and remedial purposes. • SiMLED was used primarily as a calculator, rather than as an exploration learning tool, as envisioned by the designers.

9. Conclusions • Our results suggest that articulation of educational goals is important in evaluation of educational software. • Vicente and Pain (2002) have defined motivation in emotional terms such as satisfaction, sensory interest, cognitive interest, confidence and effort. • Our findings have been that students are able to work out effective strategies to achieve their goals when given choices in how they use a software application. • Johansson (1998) found that students find learning from examplecode easier than learning from traditional textbook material. • Stasko, Badre and Lewis (Stasko et al.1993) reported that animation is most effective when accompanied by comprehensive descriptions.