Personalizing the design of computer-based instruction to enhance learning

This paper reports two studies designed to investigate the effect on learning outcomes of matching individuals' preferred cognitive styles to computer-based instructional (CBI) material. Study 1 considered the styles individually as Verbalizer, Imager, Wholist and Analytic. Study 2 considered the bi-dimensional nature of cognitive styles in order to assess the full ramification of cognitive styles on learning: Analytic/Imager, Analytic/ Verbalizer, Wholist/Imager and the Wholist/Verbalizer. The mix of images and text, the nature of the text material, use of advance organizers and proximity of information to facilitate meaningful connections between various pieces of information were some of the considerations in the design of the CBI material. In a quasi-experimental format, students' cognitive styles were analysed by Cognitive Style Analysis (CSA) software. On the basis of the CSA result, the system defaulted students to either matched or mismatched CBI material by alternating between the two formats. The instructional material had a learning and a test phase. Learning outcome was tested on recall, labelling, explanation and problem-solving tasks. Comparison of the matched and mismatched instruction did not indicate significant difference between the groups, but the consistently better performance by the matched group suggests potential for further investigations where the limitations cited in this paper are eliminated. The result did indicate a significant difference between the four cognitive styles with the Wholist/Verbalizer group performing better then all other cognitive styles. Analysing the difference between cognitive styles on individual test tasks indicated significant difference on recall, labelling and explanation, suggesting that certain test tasks may suit certain cognitive styles.

Direct instruction in mathematics : issues for schools with high Indigenous enrolments : a literature review

Direct instruction, an approach that is becoming familiar to Queensland schools that have high Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations, has been gaining substantial political and popular support in the United States of America [USA], England and Australia. Recent examples include the No Child Left Behind policy in the USA, the British National Numeracy Strategy and in Australia, Effective Third Wave Intervention Strategies. Direct instruction, stems directly from the model created in the 1960s under a Project Follow Through grant. It has been defined as a comprehensive system of education involving all aspects of instruction. Now in its third decade of influencing curriculum, instruction and research, direct instruction is also into its third decade of controversy because of its focus on explicit and highly directed instruction for learning. Characteristics of direct instruction are critiqued and discussed to identify implications for teaching and learning for Indigenous students.

An investigation of the effect of individual cognitive preferences on learning through computer-based instruction

This paper reports a study investigating the effect of individual cognitive styles on learning through computer-based instruction. The study adopted a quasi-experimental design involving four groups which were presented with instructional material that either matched or mismatched with their preferred cognitive styles. Cognitive styles were measured by cognitive style assessment software (Riding, 1991). The instructional material was designed to cater for the four cognitive styles identified by Riding. Students' learning outcomes were measured by the time taken to perform test tasks and the number of marks scored. The results indicate no significant difference between the matched and mismatched groups on both time taken and scores on test tasks. However, there was significant difference between the four cognitive styles on test score. The Wholist/Verbaliser group performed better then all other groups. There was no significant difference between the other groups. An analysis of the performance on test task by each cognitive style showed significant difference between the groups on recall, labelling and explanation. Difference between the cognitive style groups did not reach significance level for problem-solving tasks. The findings of the study indicate a potential for cognitive style to influence learning outcomes measured by performance on test tasks.

Computer assisted instruction and individual cognitive style preferences in learning : does it matter?

This paper reports the findings of a pilot study aimed at improving learning outcomes from Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI). The study involved second year nursing students at the Queensland University of Technology. Students were assessed for their preferred cognitive style and presented with either matched or mismatched instructional material. The instructional material was developed in accordance with four cognitive styles (Riding & Cheema, 1991). The findings indicate groups that received instructional material which matched their preferred cognitive style, possibly, performed better than groups that received mismatched instructional material. The matched group was particularly better in the explanation and problem solving tasks.

Australian Library and Information Studies (LIS) researchers' ranking of LIS journals

The paper describes the processes and the outcomes of the ranking of LIS journal titles by Australia’s LIS researchers during 2007-8, firstly through the Australian federal government’s Research Quality Framework (RQF) process and then its replacement, the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) initiative. The requirement to rank the journals titles used came from discussions held at the RQF panel meeting held in February 2007 in Canberra, Australia. While it was recognised that the Web of Science (formerly ISI) journal impact approach of journal acceptance for measures of research quality and impact might not work for LIS, it was apparent that this model would be the default if no other ranking of journal titles became apparent. Although an increasing number of LIS and related discipline journals were appearing in the Web of Science listed rankings, the number was few and it was thus decided by the Australian LIS research community to undertake the ranking exercise.

Library and information science education 2.0: guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Sue Reynolds.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS educative practice in helping to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice : interview with John Terrell

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice : interview with Kate Davis.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Order of instruction effects - do they make a difference when teaching senior chemistry with computer based visualizations?

This study investigated whether conceptual development is greater if students learning senior chemistry hear teacher explanations and other traditional teaching approaches first then see computer based visualizations or vice versa. Five Canadian chemistry classes, taught by three different teachers, studied the topics of Le Chatelier’s Principle and dynamic chemical equilibria using scientific visualizations with the explanation and visualizations in different orders. Conceptual development was measured using a 12 item test based on the Chemistry Concepts Inventory. Data was obtained about the students’ abilities, learning styles (auditory, visual or kinesthetic) and sex, and the relationships between these factors and conceptual development due to the teaching sequences were investigated. It was found that teaching sequence is not important in terms of students’ conceptual learning gains, across the whole cohort or for any of the three subgroups.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Hilary Hughes.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Bob Pymm.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Jake Wallis.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.