We were discussing about possibles selves and identify the other day in my motivation seminar. The construct of "possible selves" is commonly categorized into "hope-for self" and "feared self". Interestingly, I learned from the articles that one's "possible selves" do affect their working self-concept (how they see themselves at a point in time). Naturally, I would relate the articles used for discussion in class to my research interest.

How does a pre-service teacher's or an in-service teacher's "possible selves" affect their use of technology (as cognitive tool, in particular) in teaching?

How does a student's "possible selves" affect their use of technology (as cognitive tool, in particular) in learning?

Do hope-for selves bring about an approach-orientation?

On the other hand, do feared selves bring about an avoidance orientation?

How would this difference (hope-for self versus feared self) affect the type of strategies one would used in trying to attain or avoid these "possible selves"?


... ...

I am currently taking a doctoral seminar on motivation and that really helps to refresh some of the constructs I have learned before in a motivation class while I was a first year doctoral student. Interestingly, the articles in both DBR and motivation seminars do provide "some" (or should I say "substantial") food for thoughts in regards to my research interest.

Take for example, while going through the factors affecting initial implementation and continued use of any technology by teachers delineated in Collins (1992), it seems, at least to me, that these factors do fit rather nicely into the expectancy-value model proposed by Wigfield and Eccles (1992, 2000). I do think that the expectancy-value model does provide a viable framework for us (I am interested in teachers' attitudes toward the use of technology myself) to study adoption and sustainability issues. At the same time, I also find that the construct of "self-efficacy" as defined by Bandura highly relevant to these issues too.


References

Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology, 15-22.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265-310.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.

In my first entry, I stated that I was told during one of the sessions in our doctoral seminar last fall that I would need to further narrow down my research focus. In particular, I was asked about the type of computer-based cognitive tool I want to focus on. As it turned out, I tried to look at the use of blog as a cognitive tool. However, it doesn't make much sense to me to choose a specific tool to work on. I think it all boils down to the research questions. If my research questions evolve around pre-service teachers' attitudes toward the use of computer-based technology as cognitive tool in teaching, then it may not be necessary for me to just focus on a specific tool since it is pre-service teachers' attitudes toward such use that is of interest.

In fact, this can be a longitudinal study that focuses on how attitudes toward such use evolved (change in attitudes) when one's role change from that of a pre-service teacher to that of a teacher.

A thought about choosing a specific tool as the focus in one's research agenda is that computer-based technology evolve at an exponential rate and if it is a specific tool we are looking at in our research, how applicable will the findings be in just a span of 2-3 years?

Recently, as part of the reading requirements by EDIT 9990, I have read a few articles related to DBR - the seminal work of Brown (1992), an article by the Design-Based Research Collective (2003) and another by Cobb et al (2003). What I am posting for this entry is in fact similar to a posting by me in the discussion thread within WebCT. However, I feel the need to also have it posted on the blog since it is highly related to my research interest.

It is in the article by Cobb et al (2003) that I first note that the theories developed in DBR are targeted at domain-specific learning processes and the means that are designed to support these learning processes. It is enlightening to note that learning encompasses a much broader definition that not only includes the acquiring of knowledge, but also the development of individual or group social practices and even identify and interest that enhance learning. If that is so, I will also like to think, at this point of time, that this definition should also include development of attitudes, perceptions and beliefs of teachers or students that enhance transfer of learning.

I was working on a pilot study regarding the attitudes of pre-service teachers toward the use of computer-based technology as cognitive tool last semester. My participants were pre-service teachers who were taking EDIT 2000 at UGA. If I had looked at how positive attitudes towards the use of computer-based technology as cognitive tool to enhance learning was developed and how such development could be supported in EDIT 2000, would that be considered a DBR?

My personal take on this right now is positive but I will wait to see what the experts have to say about this and will take it from there in my next posting.

This journal is kept as part of the requirement for EDIT 9990 (Design Based Research) in Spring 2006. I look forward to the exchange of ideas from everyone in this class. I know we are supposed to write informally here but my first posting may seem otherwise as I am using it to bring up, in black and white, what I have in mind so far in regards to my research agenda.

I am currently interested in the use of computer-based technology, blog in particular, as cognitive tool to enhance learning. As such, it will be interesting to note how live journal can be use as a cognitive tool to help participants in this class further shape their research agenda.

A)What is cognitive tool?
Cognitive tools refer to technologies, tangible or intangible, that enhance the cognitive power of human beings during thinking, problem solving, and learning (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996; Salomon, Perkins, & Globerson, 1991).

With specific reference to computer-based technology, Lajoie (1993) categorized computer-based cognitive tools into four types according to the functions they serve: (a) tools that support cognitive and metacognitive processes, (b) tools that share cognitive load by providing support for lower level cognitive skills to free up resources for higher order thinking, (c) tools that allowed learners to engage in cognitive activities that would be out of reach otherwise, and (d) tools that allow learners to generate and test hypotheses in the context of problem solving.

B)Environment for learning with cognitive tool
Learning with cognitive tools are deemed most appropriate in constructivist learning environments (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996; Jonassen & Carr, 2000) since, in such environments, learners actively participate in ways that are intended to help them construct their own knowledge. Also, Edelson, Pea and Gomez (1996) proposed that such an environment should be supplemented with a socio-cultural perspective of learning in which learners construct knowledge in partnership with each other with culturally defining resources.

C) What computer-based technology?
I was told during one of the sessions in our doctoral seminar last fall that I would need to further narrow down my research focus. In particular, I was asked about the type of computer-based cognitive tool I want to focus on. I do think that blog as cognitive tool to enhance learning will be something worth looking at since the use of blog in education, as most of us know, is on the rise.

Questions:
i)What characteristics/designs of a blogging environment hinder or support knowledge construction?
ii)What are the scaffolds needed in a blogging environment for learning to take place?
iii)How does teachers' and/or students' attitudes towards the use of blog for learning affect learning?
iv)What principles should be adhered to by educators in the use of blog as cognitive tool to help students learn?

D)Types of research goals
Since researchers with design/development goals are focused on the dual objectives of developing creative approaches to solving human teaching, learning, and performance problems while at the same time constructing a body of design principles that can guide future design or development efforts. I wonder if what I have so far can be classified under development goals since it also seems to satisfy the dual objectives for such goals by trying to i)provide an understanding of how knowledge construction is hindered/supported by blog and ii)generate a set of principles in the use of blog as cognitive tool for learning.


References

Edelson, D.C., Pea, R., & Gomez, L. (1996). Constructivism in the collaboratory. In B.G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design, 151-164. Englewood Cliffs, Educational Technology Publications.

Jonassen & Carr, (2000). Affording Multiple Knowledge Representations for Learning. In S.P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computer as cognitive tools II: No more walls: Theory change, paradigm shifts and their influence on the use of computers for instructional purposes, 165-198. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jonassen, H. D., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with Technologies: Using Computers as Cognitive Tools In H. D. Jonassen, ed. HandBook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, 693-719. New York: Prentice Hall International.

Lajoie, S. P., & Derry, S. J. (Eds.). (1993). Computers as cognitive tools. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence technologies. Educational Researcher, 20, 2-9.