TT 6001 - Final Examination Question at Skonnakorn

8/12/2019 TT 6001 - Final Examination Question at Skonnakorn

1/21

Date (Closed Book Exam)

Time

Venue

Not allow to bring text books, sheets, handouts, written notes, dictionary, notebook , smart phone

and other electronic devices in the examination room

***Cell phones need to be turned off at all time in the examination room.***

*** Dressing unproperly is not allowed to enter the examination room.***

Seat No. STD_ID Room STD_Signature

1 567-1705Off-campus

test centerMr. Brendan D. McKell

Assumption University

Graduate School of eLearning

Master of Education in Teaching & Technology

Final Examination Semester 1/2013

TT 6001 Teaching and Learning with Technology

Saturday 21 September 2013

13.00 - 16.00

STD_NAME AND SURNAME


2/21

ASSUMPTION UNIVERSITY Graduate School of eLearning


Final Examination

TT 6001 Teaching and Learning with Technology

Semester 1/2013

QUESTION P AP ER

Instructions :

1. This exam is 30% toward final grade.2. This is a closed bookexamination.

3. There are 4questions in this question papers; you are required to answer 3 questions.4. Allocate your time wisely and attempt all the questions in the test. You are given 3 hours

for the exam. All question papers and answer sheets must be submitted back to the proctor

at the end of the test.

5. Any electronic accessory equipment such as mobile phone, calculator, and computer are notallowed to bring to the examination room.

Name of Student: __________________________________ ID. ________________


3/21

2

Assumption University

Graduate School of eLearning


Final Examination Semester 1/2013

Instruction: Please try your best in answering questions within the time allowed.

Question 1 and 2 :Choose Oneof the two questions only. Please write a discussion paper based

on the article and question you chose. The length of the discussion is between 1 and 11/2 pagelong.

1.According to the article by Richard E. Clark and Thomas R. Ramage, the research that comparedifferent types of media did not show any learning differences between the media that are being

compared. (Details can be read in the provided abstract and conclusion for each paper.) In your

opinion, how does the information provided in the abstract/introduction and the conclusion of

these two research articles would impact your choices of choosing technology or media to use in

education settings (Classroom or others)? (30 Points)

2.Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) is becoming a new trend of technology integration into education.According to the article titled BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) and the Classroom, students usingtheir devices during class can disrupts learning, while there are potential of using the devices to further

engage students into learning. Different points of views happen for any new technology trend. In your

opinion, please discuss the following question. (Note: the discussion can be based on any education

settings such as: classroom, online-learning, training, or others. Please describe the environment that

you will base your discussion on as well.) (30 Points)

- How does the BYOD impact learning? (Both positively and negatively)Question 3 and 4 : Please answer both (3 & 4)questions. The length of the answer should be

between to 1 page for each question.

3.Virtual communities, social networks, and other online social interactions are becoming normalactivity when people are online. (15 Points)

a.How do you think the social activity would promote learning?b.Are there negative effects towards usage of social network for the purpose of learning?

Please, express your thoughts towards this notion.

4.An instructor is planning to use a learning object to be part of the English course for students. There are2 learning objects that the instructor found. Both provide the same content that the instructor wants to

use. However, the learning objects need to be purchased and the instructor only have a budget for only

one learning object. The instructor asked you to help evaluate each of the learning objects.You

evaluated with 5 of your friends using the LOEM table for evaluation. The results show the following

average score for each of the learning objects. (15 Points)

LO1 LO2 Full Score

Interactivity 7.5 8 9

Design 9.4 8.5 12

Engagement 10.3 9.5 12

Usability 12.5 14 15

Total 39.7 40 48

In your opinion, which of the learning object would you recommend to the instructor and why?

----------------------------------------- End of Examination. Good Luck! ---------------------------------


4/21

Review of Educational ResearchWinter 1983 Vol. 53 No. 4 Pp. 445-459

Reconsidering Research on Learning from MediaRichard E Clark

University of Southern CaliforniaABSTRACT ecent meta-analyses and other studies of media's influenceon learning are reviewed. Consistent evidence is found for the generali-zation that there are no learning benefits to be gained from employingany specific me dium to deliver instruction. Research showing performanceor time-saving gains from one or another medium are shown to bevulnerable to compelling rival hypotheses concerning the uncontrolledeffects of instructional method and novelty. Problems with current mediaattribute an d symbol system theories are described a nd suggestions madefor more promising research directions.

Studies of the influence of media on learning have been a fixed feature ofeducational research since Thorndike (1912) recommended pictures as a labor-saving device in instruction. Most of this research is buttressed by the hope thatlearning will be enhanced with the proper mix of medium, student, subject mattercontent, and learning task. A typical study compares the relative achievement ofgroups who have received similar subject matter from different med ia. This researchhas led to so-called media selection scheme s or models (e.g., Reiser Gagne ,1982). These m odels generally prom ise to incorporate existing research an d practiceinto pro cedures for selecting the best m ediu m o r mix of med ia to deliver instruction.Most of these models base many of their prescriptions on presumed learningbenefits from media (Jam ison , Suppes, Welles, 1974).However, this article will argue that most current summaries and meta-analysesof media comparison studies clearly suggest that media do not influence learningund er any con ditions. Even in the few cases where dram atic changes in achievementor ability have followed the introduction of a medium, as was the case withtelevision in El Salvador (Sch ram m, 1977), it was not the m edium that caused thechange but rather a cumcular reform that accompanied the change. The bestcurre nt evidence is that media are m ere vehicles that deliver instruction but do notinfluence student achievement any more th an the truck that delivers our groceriescauses changes in ou r nutrition. Basically, the choice of vehicle might influence thecost or extent of distributing instruction, but only the content of the vehicle caninfluence achievem ent. While research often shows a slight learning advantag e fornewer media over m ore co nventional instructional vehicles, this advantage will be

The author wishes to acknowedge the substantive advice of Gavriel Salomon, WilliamW inn , and anon ymo us reviewers without making them responsible for errors.


5/21

to avoid investing the effort required by th e mo re structured app roaches to achievethe same disappointing results. These more unstructured approaches offer relativeanon ymit y a nd th e chance to invest less effort for the less able student who, o n theother han d, actually needs th e greater structu re of the m ethod s they like less. Whilemedium and method are not the same experience, the methods conveyed by themedia in studies such as these p robably acc ount for different levels of achievementwhile subject attributio ns abo ut m edia influence their preferences.

ttitudes Toward ComputersHess and Tenezakis (1973) explored the affective responses of predominantlyMexican-American, low SES seventh, eighth and ninth graders to remedial math-ematics presented by comp ute r or teacher. Amon g a num ber of interesting findingswas an unanticipated attribution of more fairness to the computer than to theteacher. It seems that these subjects felt that the computer treated them moreequitably (kept promises, did not make decisions based on their heritage) thansome of the teachers. They consistently trusted th e com puter m ore but also found

the com puter to be less flexible an d unresponsive to student desires to changethe course or content of their instruction. Stimmel, Conno r, McCaskill and D urrett(1981 ) found strong negative affect toward com puters an d comp uter instructionam on g a large grou p of preservice teachers. These same teacher trainees had similarreactions to mathematics and science teaching, and they may have associatedcom puters with these disciplines.Conclusions

One might reasonably wonder why media are still advocated for their ability toincrease learning when research clearly indicates that such benefits are not forth-coming. Of course such conclusions are disseminated slowly and must competewith the advertising budgets of the m ultimillion dollar industry which has a vestedinterest in selling these machines for instruction. In many ways the problem isanalogous to one that occurs in the pharmaceutical industry. There we findargum ents conce rning t he relative effectiveness of different media (tablets, capsules,liquid suspensions) and different brand names carrying the same generic drug tousers.An equal contributor to this disparity between research and practice is the highexpectation we have for technology of all kinds. Other machine-based technologiessimilar to the newer electronic media have revolutionized industry and we havehad understandable hopes that they would also benefit instruction. And, there isthe fact that many educators and researchers are reserved about the effectivenessof our system of formal education. As environments for learning, media seem tooffer alternative an d m ore effective features than those available from th e conven-tional teacher in the conventional classroom. Tobias (1982) for example, hasprovided evidence that we can help overcome studen t anxiety by allowing anxiousstude nts the chance to replay a recording of a lesson. This quality of reviewabilityis com mo nly though t to distinguish so me of the newer media from the conventionalteacher's lecture. It is impo rtan t to note however, that teachers are entirely capableof reviewing material for anxious students (and probably do so often). It is whatthe teache r does-the teaching-that influences learnin g. Mo st of the me tho ds


6/21

carried by newer media can also be carried or performed by teachers. Dixon andJud d (1977), for example, compared teacher and com puter use of branchingrules in instruction and found no differences in student achievement attributableto these two media.Th e point is made, therefore, that all current reviews of media com parison stu diessuggest that we will not find learning differences that can be unambiguouslyattributed t o any m ediu m of instruction. It seems that existing research is vulnerableto rival hypotheses concerning the u ncontrolled effects of instructional method an dnovelty.More recent evidence questions the evidence for the media-based attempts todeter min e the com pon ents of effective instructional m ethods. These symbol systemor m edia attr ibute theories seem to be useful for instructional design but of limitedutility in explicating the necessary conditions th at must be me t by effective metho ds.Futu re research should therefore focus on necessary characteristics of instructiona lmethods and other variables (task, learner aptitude, and attributions), which aremore fruitful sources for understanding achievement increases. Recent studies

dealing with learner attributions and beliefs about the instructional and entertain-me nt qu alities of different media seem particularly attractive as research directions.There are no media variables in attribution research, however. Independent vari-ables are concerned with learner beliefs, an d o utco me m easures are typically somemeasure of learner persistence at a task. It seems reasonable to recommend,therefore, that researchers refrain from producing additional studies exploring therelationship between m edia a nd learn ing unless a novel theory is suggested.Refe rencesBlake. T. M otion in instructional media: Som e subject-display m ode interactions. Perceptualand .Motor Skills. 1977, 44, 975-985.Bovy. R. A. Defining the psycliologicall~~ctive.feaiures o f instrlrcfional treatmenis designed

to /ucilitate crrc attc>ndance.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Montreal, April 1983.Clark. R. E. Constructing a taxonomy of media attributes for research purposes. ill Com-tnlrnication Rellicu 1975, 23(2), 197-2 15.Clark. R. E. Antagonism between achievement and enjoyment in AT1 studies. The Educa-tional P.\~~cl~ologi.st.982. 17(2), 92- 10 1.Clark. R. E.. Snow. R. E. Alternative designs for instructional technology research. A VCotn mlm icution Reraiot. 1975. 23(4). 373-394.Cohen. J . Statistical power an alj~ sis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.). New York:Academic Press. 1977.Coh en. P.. Ebling. B.. Kulik, J. A meta-analysis of outcome studies of visual basedinstruction. Ed~rcutionalCom m~in ication nd Technology Journal 198 1, 29(1) , 26-36.Dixon. P.. Judd. W . A comparison of computer managed instruction and lecture mode forteachin g basic statistics. Jolrrnal ofc om pu te r Based Instruction 1977, 4(l) , 22-25.Glaser. R. C omp onen ts of a psychology of instruction: Towards a science of design, ReviewofE d~ rcu tion a1Research 1976, 46( ), 1-24.Glaser. R.. Cooley.W W . Instrumentation for teaching and instructional management. InR . Travers (Ed.). Sccvnd handbook ofresearch on teaching. Chicago: Ran d McNally CollegePublishing. 1973.Glass. G. V. Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Edltcational Researcher1976. S(1 0). 3-8.


7/21

9/18/12 10:15 AMBYOD (Bring Your Own Device) and the Classroom | Educational Technologies Center

Page 1 of 4http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/2012/06/08/byod-bring-your-own-device-and-the-classroom/

BYOD(Bring Your Own Device) and the ClassroomPosted on June 8, 2012byAngel Brady

A new technology trend has been mak ing the rounds in educa"tion. The tech

nology trend is called BYODor Bring Your Own Device. In higher edu

cation, this idea is not really

that new. Ithas become second nature for a stu dent to bring a laptop and their mobile device to a class. Butwith the increase access to more mobile devices (such as tablets, smartphones, eReaders, and laptops), aninstructor might won der, how can I engage my stu dent in class while their use their own devices (or should I)?

Some see the BYODtrend as a negative trend. Hav ing devices floating around during a lecture may cause a stu "dent not to focus on the content of the lecture. Oth ers have taken that point of view and flipped it, and asked,how can I get the stu dent to become engaged with my content by using their own device? We have bloggedabout using software to set up polling questions and that stu dents can answer using their laptops and mobiledevices. That is one way BYODcould work in the classroom.

Another way BYODcan work, is by inviting a guest lecturer to speak to your stu dents through a webcam. Pro"

grams like Skype can open a whole new world to your students and if they need to inter

view somebody that is

not in the local area or if they are study ing a lan guage and need a native speaker of that language to help themalong (or lecture to the stu dents) their devices may come in handy in the class room. Also, stu dents can use theirdevices to capture the audio and video and later use it as a study aid or refer ence for a research project.

Connecting with people live is a great tool in the class room, but one can also have stu dents view clips of a pub"lished video lecture (iTunesU or TedEd) as an introduction to a new topic in the classroom. They can alwaysbookmark the content and review it later since they are view ing it in a device they own.

Educational Technologies CenterPrinceton University

HomeLunch n LearnThe Productive Scholar

ScreencastsTech SpotlightsFeedback
http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/files/2012/06/ipad_hrc_flipped.pnghttp://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/files/2012/06/ipad_hrc_flipped.pnghttp://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/files/2012/06/ipad_hrc_flipped.pnghttp://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/files/2012/06/ipad_hrc_flipped.pnghttp://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/files/2012/06/ipad_hrc_flipped.pnghttp://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/2012/06/08/byod-bring-your-own-device-and-the-classroom/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/author/angelab/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/feedback/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/feedback/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/feedback/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/category/tech-spotlights/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/category/screencasts/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/category/screencasts/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/category/screencasts/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/category/productive-scholar/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/category/productive-scholar/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etchttp://blogs.princeton.edu/etchttp://blogs.princeton.edu/etchttp://blogs.princeton.edu/etchttp://blogs.princeton.edu/etchttp://blogs.princeton.edu/etchttp://blogs.princeton.edu/etchttp://blogs.princeton.edu/etchttp://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/feedback/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/category/tech-spotlights/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/category/screencasts/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/category/productive-scholar/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/category/lunch-n-learn/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etchttp://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/files/2012/06/ipad_hrc_flipped.pnghttp://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/author/angelab/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/2012/06/08/byod-bring-your-own-device-and-the-classroom/


8/21

9/18/12 10:15 AMBYOD (Bring Your Own Device) and the Classroom | Educational Technologies Center

Page 2 of 4http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/2012/06/08/byod-bring-your-own-device-and-the-classroom/

Web based applications are per fect to use (such as Google Docs) for collaboration dur ing a class or visu alizationapplications like Google Maps or Earth to help emphasize a topic in your lecture. Most classroom have wirelessaccess and some web applications like Google Docs can work offline. Students can view maps and add notesinside a web published docu ment right on their own devices.

If BYODis implemented in the cor rect way and with a directed pur pose in the classroom, it can provide the stu "dents with a more engaging and mem orable experience during a lecture.

This entry was posted in Educational Technologyand tagged byod, classroom, device, Educational Technology,mobile. Bookmark the permalink.!Screencast: Changing Your Site Layout and Theme in OpenScholarPrinceton learns at lynda.com top ten courses for Spring 2012"

2 Responses to "BYOD(Bring Your Own Device) and theClassroom"

ByAnnotated Bibli catherinestephensondotmeJuly 8, 2012 - 11:07 pm

[] http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/2012/06/08/byod-bring-your-own-device-and-the-classroom/[]

Log in to Reply

By BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) and the Classroom | Educational | eduhacks.inJune 8, 2012 - 2:47 pm

[] View original post here: BYOD(Bring Your Own Device) and the Classroom | Educational []

Log in to Reply

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Search for: Search

Visit our centers

Categories

Educational TechnologyFeatured
http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/category/featured/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/category/edtech/http://www.princeton.edu/bb/http://www.princeton.edu/etc/taohttp://www.princeton.edu/hrc/http://www.princeton.edu/nmc/https://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/wp-login.php?redirect_to=%2Fetc%2F2012%2F06%2F08%2Fbyod-bring-your-own-device-and-the-classroom%2Fhttps://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/wp-login.php?redirect_to=%2Fetc%2F2012%2F06%2F08%2Fbyod-bring-your-own-device-and-the-classroom%2Fhttp://www.eduhacks.in/educational-technology/byod-bring-your-own-device-and-the-classroom-educationalhttps://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/wp-login.php?redirect_to=%2Fetc%2F2012%2F06%2F08%2Fbyod-bring-your-own-device-and-the-classroom%2Fhttp://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/2012/06/08/byod-bring-your-own-device-and-the-classroom/http://catherinestephensondotme.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/annotated-bibli-2/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/2012/07/17/princeton-learns-at-lynda-com-top-ten-courses-for-spring-2012/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/2012/05/21/screencast-changing-your-site-layout-and-theme-in-openscholar/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/2012/06/08/byod-bring-your-own-device-and-the-classroom/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/tag/mobile/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/tag/educational-technology/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/tag/device/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/tag/classroom/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/tag/byod/http://blogs.princeton.edu/etc/category/edtech/


9/21

The "No Significant Difference" Phenomenon:

A Literature Review

Thomas R. Ramage

ntroduction

via

ethodology


10/21

effectiveness

onclusion

does not

eferences


11/21

ASSUMPTION UNIVERSITY OF THAILANDGraduate School of eLearning


Final Examination Answer Sheets

Student ID: .

Name/ Surname : ..

Course Name : ..

Page 1 of 10


12/21

Page 2 of 10


13/21

Page 3 of 10


14/21

Page 4 of 10


15/21

Page 5 of 10


16/21

Page 6 of 10


17/21

Page 7 of 10


18/21

Page 8 of 10


19/21

Page 9 of 10


20/21

Page 10 of 10


21/21

SSUMPTION UNIVERSITYGR DU TE SCHOOL OF eLE RNINGSCIT Building 9

thfloor, 88 Moo 8 Bangna-Trad Km 26, Bang Sao Thong, Samutprakarn 10540 Thailand

Tel: + 66 2 7232944 Fax: + 66 2 7232959

COURSE EVALUATION

SEMESTER / .

COURSE ID COURSE NAME

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

On a scale of 1-5 where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree, pleasethe most appropriate answer:

5 4 3 2 1 N/A

NO QUESTIONS

StronglyAgree

Agree

Uncertain

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Not

Applicable

CONTENT EXPERT

1 Exhibited sound knowledge of the course.

2 Spoke clearly and distinctly.

3 Explained content clearly.

4 The objectives of the course were clearly stated.

5 The content of the course clearly reflected the stated objectives.

6 The lectures helped me develop my analytical skills.

7 I would like to study with this content expert again.

FACILITATING INSTRUCTOR(S)

1 Exhibited sound knowledge of the course.

2 Encouraged student participation in learning activities.

3 Was open to students' comments and suggestions.

4 Was accessible for consultation (e.g. questions, calls, email, etc).

5 The score and grading of student were fair.

6 I received adequate feedback on my work.

7 The instructional tutorials activities are adequate.

8 The instructional case studies activities are adequate.

9 The instructional practices activities are adequate.

10 Course assignments/projects are sufficient.

COURSEWARE

1 The instructional materials (e.g. lectures, assignments, handouts,study guides, reading list etc) were helpful in directing my learning.

2 The textbooks were valuable for my understanding of the course.

3All units were well sequenced and organized and they were easy tounderstand.

4 Text, pictures and graphics were clear.

5 Quality of videos and audios were acceptable.

6 The courseware and website interface were easy to use.

OVERALL

1 The courseware was effective and very helpful for my studies.

Additional Comments :

..

Documents

TT 6001 - Final Examination Question at Skonnakorn