A comparison of student outcomes with and without teacher facilitated computer-based instruction

A Social-Cognitive Framework for Pedagogical Agents as Learning Companions

“…Traditionally, computer-based learning environments (e.g., intelligent tutoring systems) have been tailored to meet a student's individual needs, supporting each learner independently when the environments were well designed (Aimeur & Frasson, 1996;Anderson, Corbett, Koedinger, & Pelletier, 1995;Gertner & VanLehn, 2000;Graesser, VanLehn, Rose, Jordan, & Harter, 2001). However, those learning environments typically failed to provide situated social interaction, which is regarded as a significant influence on both learning and motivation (Lave & Wenger, 2001;Palincsar & Brown, 1984;Powell, Aeby, & Carpenter-Aeby, 2003;Vygotsky, Cole, John-Steiner, Scribner, & Souberman, 1978;Wertsch, Minick, & Arns, 1984). With the advances of technology, pedagogical agents can be designed to support the social-cognitive aspect of learning in computer-based environments, playing well-defined instructional roles, following specified social conventions, and even responding to learners with apparent empathy (Hays-Roth & Doyle, 1998).…”

Technology and Education Change

“…Low student-to-computer ratio in Barnett (2002) O'Dwyer et al , classroom Glennan & 2005) Melmed (1996 OTA (1995) Cavalier & Klein (1998) Powell et al (2003) learning outcomes. Most educators will expend the effort needed to integrate technology into instruction when, and only when, they are convinced that there will be significant payoffs in terms of student learning outcomes.…”

“…A formal search of the ERIC and Psychlnfo databases to identify empirical studies using a control group design (either experimental or quasi-experimental) was conducted Means in support of a large research study (Dynarski et al, 2007) sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences. Only a single published study meeting these criteria (Powell, Aeby, & Carpenter-Aeby, 2003) was identified through this search. 1 Powell, Aeby, and Carpenter-Aeby (2003) found that teacher presence during use of instructional software and teacher review of software reports of student performance on the software produced greater student learning.…”

Effectiveness of Combining Algorithm and Program Animation: A Case Study with Data Structure Course

“…The concept of using computer in education is referred by several names such as: (1) Computer Aided Instruction (CAI) (Aqda, Hamidi, & Rahimi, 2011;Bintas & Camli, 2009;Desrochers & Gentry, 2004;Renshaw & Taylor, 2000); (2) Computer Aided Education (CAE) (Workman, 2004); (3) Computer Assisted Learning (CAL) (Cepni, Tas, & Kose, 2006;Gürbüz & Birgin, 2012;Liao, 2007;Ozmen, 2008); (4) Computer Based Education (CBE) (Renshaw & Taylor, 2000;See et al, 2010;Workman, 2004); (5) Computer Based Instruction (CBI) (Baturay & Bay, 2010;Means & Roschelle, 2010;Owusu et al, 2010;Powell, Aeby, & Carpenter-Aeby, 2003); (6) Computer Enriched Instruction (CEI) (Desrochers & Gentry, 2004;See et al, 2010); (7) Computer Managed Instruction (CMI) (Desrochers & Gentry, 2004;See et al, 2010); (8) Computer-Based Learning Environment (CBLE) (Künsting, Wirth, & Paas, 2011); and (9) Computer Assisted Teaching (CAT) (Gürbüz & Birgin, 2012). As mentioned before the system combined Program Animation and Algorithm Animation, so it is good to review the related studies about the effectiveness for each of them.…”