Advertisement

Researching the Design and Evaluation of Information Technology Tools for Education

  • Eric Bruillard
  • Georges-Louis Baron
Reference work entry
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)

Abstract

Concerning IT tools for education, we can distinguish (1) software tools for learning specific subject matters (e.g., simulation and discovery tools), (2) learning platforms, including MOOC platforms for distance learning but also used in hybrid contexts, and (3) digital resources (Wikipedia and Wikimedia, new interactive textbooks, video capsules, etc.). Behind all these tools, we observe strong tension between the desire to individualize instruction and the intention of offering collaborative usage of general tools, where users have a certain margin of freedom. If the analysis of big data appears as a new Eldorado for education, we have to be aware of incompleteness or spuriousness of data and faulty interpretation of results: number of different types of data (behavior, physiology, etc.) are collected and made accessible, interpreting them is difficult, and much research is still needed. Concerning design processes, a wide spectrum is observed: companies, start-ups, communities, and groups. An interesting link between teacher communities of practice and open educational resources can be underlined. Evaluating education software, resources, and platforms supports an extreme diversity of approaches. But it should include different criteria: functional compliance, interactional conformity, and hedonic quality. Finally, it is important to reaffirm the key role of teachers, helping them to develop their agency in the field of educational resources, empowering them, and accepting them as trusted partners.

Keywords

Software MOOC Secondary education Person machine interaction Evaluation Community of practice 

References

  1. Abramovich, S., & Schunn, C. (2012). Studying teacher selection of resources in an ultra-large scale interactive system: Does metadata guide the way? Computers & Education, 58(1), 551–559.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, D., & Potts, J. (2016). How innovation commons contribute to discovering and developing new technologies. International Journal of the Commons, 10(2), 1035–1054. Publisher: Uopen Journals.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron, G.-L. (2011). Autour d’un mot de la formation: Learning design. Recherche et Formation, 68, 109–120. http://rechercheformation.revues.org/1565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron, G.-L., & Bruillard, E. (2003). Information and communication technology: Models of evaluation in France. Evaluation and Program Planning, 26(2), 177–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baron, G.-L., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baron, G.-L., & Zablot, S. (2017). De la constitution de ressources personnelles à la création de communautés formelles: étude de cas en France. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 11(2), 27–45. http://resmicte.lis.upatras.gr/index.php/review/article/view/2811.Google Scholar
  7. Berger, C. (2001). Wireless: Changing teaching and learning “Everywhere, Everytime”. January/February 2001 Educause review. http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0116.pdf.
  8. Beyer, H. & Holtzblatt, H, K (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems, Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  9. Bhaskar, M. (2016). Curation: The power of selection in a world of excess. London: Piatkus. 368 pages.Google Scholar
  10. Bork, A. M. (Éd.). (1980). Computer assisted learning in physics education (1st ed). Oxford; New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Brugeilles, C., & Cromer, S. (2009). Analysing gender representations in school textbooks. Éditions du CEPED. Collection “les Clefs pour”, 129 p. http://www.ceped.org/IMG/pdf/analysing_gender_representations_in_school_textbookst.pdf.
  12. Bruillard, E. (1997). Les machines à enseigner. Paris: Hermes. Consulté à l’adresse. http://www.stef.ens-cachan.fr/annur/bruillard/mae_somr.htm.Google Scholar
  13. Bruillard, É. (2016). ReVEA project: Living resources for teaching and learning. An overview. In SITE conference, 21–25 March; Savannah.Google Scholar
  14. Bruillard, E. (2017). MOOCs as contemporary forms of books: New educational services between control and conversation. IARTEM e-Journal, 9(1), 142. http://biriwa.com/iartem/ejournal/volume9.1/articles/article_7_bruillard_iartem_ej_2017.pdf.Google Scholar
  15. Buck Cox, S. J. (1985). No tragedy of the commons. Environmental Ethics, 7(1), 49–61. http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/3113/buck_NoTragedy.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Calude, C. S., & Longo, G. (2016). The deluge of spurious correlations in big data. Foundations of Science, 1–18. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10699-016-9489-4.
  17. Carbonell, J. R. (1970). AI in CAI: An artificial intelligence approach to computer-assisted instruction. IEE Transactions on Man-Machine Systems, 11(4), 190–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chuang, I., & Dean, Ho A. (2016). HarvardX and MITx: Four years of open online courses – Fall 2012-Summer 2016. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2889436.
  19. Cisel, M. (2016). Utilisations des MOOC: éléments de typologie. Thèse de l’université de Paris-Saclay, ENS de Cachan. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01444125/document.
  20. Coutaz, J. (2013). Essai sur l’Interaction Homme-Machine et son évolution. In 1024, Bulletin de la société informatique de France, n 1. http://1024.labri.fr/1024-numero-1-coutaz.pdf.
  21. Cox, M. J. (2013). Formal to informal learning with IT: Research challenges and issues for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1), 85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cox, M. J., & Marshall, G. (2007). Effects of ICT: Do we know what we should know? Education and Information Technologies, 12, 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cox, M. J., Rhodes, V., & Hall, J. (1988). The use of computer assisted learning in primary schools: Some factors affecting the uptake. Computers and Education, 12(1), 173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Csikszentmihályi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York; Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  25. Dabbage, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal learning environments, social media and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Daniel, J. (2012). Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in a Maze of Myth, Paradox and Possibility (p. 26). Séoul: Korea National Open University. Consulté à l’adresse http://www.tonybates.ca/wp-content/uploads/Making-Sense-of-MOOCs.pdf.
  27. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Democracy_and_Education.
  28. Dorey, S. (2012). Les logiciels de visualisation moléculaire dans l’enseignement des sciences de la vie: Conceptions et usages. École normale supérieure de Cachan-ENS Cachan. Consulté à l’adresse https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00802668/.
  29. Dorey, S., Blondel, F.-M., & Bruillard, É. (2013). Common uses of molecular visualization software in secondary school: Reaching a saturation point. New-Orleans: SITE 2013; full paper, 25–29 March.Google Scholar
  30. Downes, S. (2007). Models for sustainable open educational resources. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 29–44. Informing Science Institute: USA. PDF: 15 p., (consulted 10/03/2017). http://ijello.org/Volume3/IJKLOv3p029-044Downes.pdf.Google Scholar
  31. Holtzblatt, K., & Beyer, H. (2015). Contextual design: Evolved. Morgan & Claypool Publishers series, Synthesis lectures on human-centered informatics #24. http://wtf.tw/ref/holtzblatt.pdf.
  32. Kattmann, U., Duit, R., Gropengiesser, H., & Komorek, M. (1996). Educational reconstruction-bringing together issues of scientific clarification and students’ conceptions. In Annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis.Google Scholar
  33. Kizilcec, R., Schneider, E., Cohen, G., & McFarland, D. (2014). Encouraging Forum Participation in Online Courses with Collectivist, Individualist, and Neutral Motivational Framings. eLearning Papers, 37, 13–22.Google Scholar
  34. Knight, B. A., Horsley, M., & Eliot, M. (2014). Eye tracking and the learning system: An overview. In M. Horsley, M. Eliot, B. A. Knight, & R. Reilly (Eds.), Current trends in eye tracking research. Switzerland: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02868-2_22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Niebert, K., & Gropengiesser, H. (2013). The model of educational reconstruction: A framework for the design of theory based content specific interventions. The example of climate change. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research – Part B: Illustrative cases (pp. 511–531). Enschede: SLO.Google Scholar
  36. Norman, D. A. (1998). The invisible computer. Why good products can fail, the personal computer is so complex, and information appliances are the solution. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
  37. OECD. (2007). Giving knowledge for free: The emergence of Open Educational Resources. Paris: OECD – CERI. [online], PDF: 153 p., (consulté le 10 mars 2017). http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/38654317.pdf.Google Scholar
  38. OECD. (2016). Big data: Bringing competition policy to the digital era (Background note by the secretariat) (p. 40). Repéré à https://one.oecd.org/document/DAF/COMP(2016)14/en/pdf.
  39. Ostrom, E., & Basurto, X. (2011). Crafting analytical tools to study institutional change. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(3), 317–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pask, G. (1966). A brief account of work on adaptive teaching and measuring systems. Kybernetika, 2(4), 287–299. http://dml.cz/bitstream/handle/10338.dmlcz/125795/Kybernetika_02-1966-4_1.pdf.Google Scholar
  41. Quentin, I., & Bruillard, E. (2009). Le fonctionnement de sesamath: une etude exploratoire In EPAL 2009. Grenoble. Consulté à l’adresse http://w3.u-grenoble3.fr/epal/dossier/06_act/pdf/epal2009-quentin-bruillard.pdf.
  42. Quentin, I., & Bruillard, E. (2013). Explaining internal functioning of online teacher networks: Between personal interest and depersonalized collective production, between the sandbox and the hive. Full paper Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (Site). New Orleans, 25–29 March 2013.Google Scholar
  43. Reeves, T. (2008). Evaluation of the design and development of It tools in education. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 1037–1051). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reich, J. (2014). MOOCS and the science of learning. Education Week, July 8, 2014. Consulted 10/09/2014. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/edtechresearcher/2014/07/MOOCS_and_the_science_of_learning.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS3.
  45. Rouvroy, A. (2009). Gouverner: détecter et prévenir !, In Politique, issue 61, online http://www.crid.be/pdf/public/6167.pdf.
  46. Toups, Z. O., Kerne, A., Hamilton, W. A., & Shahzad, N. (2011). Zero-fidelity simulation of fire emergency response: Improving team coordination learning. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1959–1968). ACM. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1979226.
  47. Unesco. (2015). Guidelines for open educational resources (OER) in higher education. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002136/213605e.pdf.
  48. Van Der Schoot, M., Vasbinder, A. L., Horsley, T. M., & Van Lieshout, E. C. (2008). The role of two reading strategies in text comprehension: An eye fixation study in primary school children. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(2), 203–223. https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?output=instlink&q=info:J0vScLz1bGYJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=fr&as_sdt=0,5&scillfp=1862537280427339790&oi=lle.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Lehn, K. (1990). Mind bugs. The origins of procedural misconceptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 253 p.Google Scholar
  50. Webb, M., & Cox, M. J. (2004). A review of pedagogy related to ICT. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 235–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zagal, J. P., Björk, S., & Lewis, C. (2013). Dark patterns in the design of games. In Foundations of digital games 2013. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1043332.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire STEFParisFrance
  2. 2.Université Paris DescartesParisFrance

Section editors and affiliations

  • Margaret Cox
    • 1
  • Joke Voogt
    • 2
  1. 1.King's College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Child Development and EducationUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations