Evaluating computer-based learning environments: hazards of the design process, a source of instability when establishing research questions?
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
In France, research laboratories are increasingly asked to join educational technology design projects, in which they are not in a position in which they can influence design choices significantly. To produce scientific results, researchers are faced with the need to formulate their research questions so that the inevitable hazards of long-term design projects do not significantly affect the productivity of their work. In this contribution, based on a case study, the Student-Researcher Digital Notebook, we highlight the trajectories of different research questions. Some remained unchanged, while the others needed to disappear or evolve due to technical issues with the prototype. A question appeared during the design process when the opportunity arises to produce original results. We detail the reasons behind these choices.
Article Details
References
Baron, G.-L. et Bruillard, E. (2007). ICT, educational technology and educational instruments. Will what has worked work again elsewhere in the future? Education and Information Technologies, 12(2), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-007-9033-9
Biesta, G. J. J. (2010). Why ‘What Works’ Still Won’t Work: From Evidence-Based Education to Value-Based Education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29(5), 491-503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-010-9191-x
Bonnat, C. (2017). Etayage de l’activité de conception expérimentale par un EIAH pour apprendre la notion de métabolisme cellulaire en terminale scientifique. Manuscrit de thèse non publié. Université Grenoble Alpes, France.
Bonnat, C, Marzin, J. P et d’Ham, C. (2019). Modélisation didactique pour la conception d’étayages dans un EIAH : Exemple d’une activité de conception expérimentale en biologie. STICEF, 25. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02015388
Cisel, M., Beauné, A, Bernard, F., Voulgre, E. et Baron, G. (2017). Analyse d’un outil de décision mobilisé dans la conception d’un EIAH. Dans Actes de la 8e conférence sur les Environnements Informatiques pour l’Apprentissage Humain, 382-385.
Cisel, M. et Baron, G. (2019a). Vers des intelligences artificielles pour l’enseignement du raisonnement scientifique. Dans Séminaire Inter-Laboratoires sur l’Education Scientifique et Technologique. Patras, 3-5 avril 2019.
Cisel, M. et Baron, G.-L. (2019b). Utilisation de tableaux de bord numériques pour l’évaluation des compétences scolaires : Une étude de cas. Questions Vives. Recherches en éducation, 31. https://doi.org/10.4000/questionsvives.3883
Cisel, M., Barbier, C. et Baron, G.-L. (2019). Rapport scientifique de synthèse de la recherche Cahier numérique de l’élève chercheur (CNEC). Université Paris Descartes (Paris 5). https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02278348
Cisel, M. (2020). Évaluer l’utilité d’un EIAH : difficultés rencontrées lors d’une expérience randomisée, STICEF, 27, 1. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03245831
Coquidé, M. Fortin, C. et Rumelhard, G. (2009). L’investigation : fondements et démarches, intérêts et limites. ASTER. 49, 51-78. https://doi.org/10.4267/2042/31129
Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N. et Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the Challenges of Inquiry-Based Learning Through Technology and Curriculum Design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3-4), 391-450. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1999.9672075
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Kosultit Oy.
Fuchs, B. (2014). The writing is on the wall: using Padlet for whole-class engagement. LOEX Quarterly, 40(4), 7. https://commons.emich.edu/loexquarterly/vol40/iss4/4/
Jamet, E. (2006). Une présentation des principales méthodes d’évaluation des EIAH en psychologie cognitive. STICEF, 13. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00696350
Laferrière, T. et Lamon, M. (2010). Knowledge Building/Knowledge Forum®: The Transformation of Classroom Discourse. Dans M. S. Khine et I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New Science of Learning (pp. 485–501). New York, NY: Springer.
Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the Knowledge Integration Environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781-796. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412275
Linn, M. C. (2013). Internet Environments for Science Education. Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge.
Pirone, F. (2018) « Les Savanturiers de la sociologie ». De la recherche en « éducation par la recherche ». Diversité. 192.
Quintana, C., Zhang, M. et Krajcik, J. (2005). A Framework for Supporting Metacognitive Aspects of Online Inquiry Through Software-Based Scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 235-244. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4004_5
Royer, M. (2017). Les Savanturiers : le chemin de l’investigation scientifique. Les Cahiers Pédagogiques. http://www.cahiers-pedagogiques.com/Les-Savanturiers-le-chemin-de-l-investigation-scientifique
Saavedra, R. (2015). Etayer le travail des élèves avec la plateforme LabBook pour donner davantage de sens aux activités expérimentales réalisées par des élèves de première S. Manuscrit de thèse non publié, Université Grenoble-Alpes, France.
Sandstrom, C. et Bjork, J. (2010). Idea management systems for a changing innovation landscape. International Journal of Product Development, 11(3-4), 310-324. https://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticle.php?artid=33964
Scardamalia, M. et Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. Encyclopedia of Distributed Learning, 269-272.
Scardamalia, M. et Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge Building: Theory, Pedagogy, and Technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (p. 97-118). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Scardamalia, M. et Bereiter, C. (2013). An Architecture for Collaborative Knowledge Building. In Computer-Based Learning Environments and Problem Solving. Springer Science et Business Media.
Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-Based Education Policies: Transforming Educational Practice and Research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15-21. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031007015
Slotta, J. D. et Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE Science: Web-Based Inquiry in the Classroom. New York, NY, USA: Teachers College Press.
Tchounikine, P. (2002). Quelques éléments sur la conception et l’ingénierie des EIAH. Actes des 2e assises nationales du GdR I3 - Groupe de Recherche Information Interaction Intelligence, décembre 2002. https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190110
Tchounikine, P. (2011). Computer Science and Educational Software design - A Resource for Multidisciplinary Work in Technology Enhanced Learning. Berlin, Allemagne : Springer.
Vardi, I. (2012). The impact of iterative writing and feedback on the characteristics of tertiary students' written texts. Teaching in higher education, 17(2), 167-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.611865
Verbert, K., Govaerts, S., Duval, E., Santos, J., Van Assche, F., Parra, G. et al. (2014). Learning dashboards: An overview and future research opportunities. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(6), 1499-1514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0751-2
Wu, H.-K. et Hsieh, C.-E. (2006). Developing Sixth Graders’ Inquiry Skills to Construct Explanations in Inquiry-based Learning Environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1289-1313. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600621035