| Images of connected features: |
| | | Exporing rocks in the rock cycle module |  |
| | | Alternated Individual and Group Discourse (eStep) |  |
| | | Work Reviewer |  |
| | | Discussion Maker (Automated Sorting) |  |
| | | Mini cases linked to case-related concepts |  |
| | | Introduction and setting of expectations |  |
|
Connections 
|
|
|
| Description: |
This principle calls for ensuring that students understand, at any point in their interaction with the technology, where they are headed, and why they are headed there. The flow is built as a thread leading learners, and keeping them engaged throughout the activities in the environment.
|
|
Theoretical background:
|
There can be several types of flows in an environment. Examples for three types are described below:
A Cognitive Conflict flow opens with evidence that contradicts learner’s intuition, and continues step by step to help learners accommodate scientific ideas.
A Debate flow commences with exposing learners to current STS debates, and helps students shape their stand by evaluating and critiquing evidence throughout the activities.
In a Storyboard flow learners play an active, adventurous role, in which the consequences of their activities affect the plot. The activities are designed to help learn scientific content.
|
|
|
| Tips (Challenges, Limitations, Tradeoffs, Pitfalls): |
| Limit – some learning environments are more linear than others, and provide students with a certain path to follow. A clear and engaging flow is crucial in such environments. However, in more open ended environments, less structured interaction is sought, and therefore a flow is less critical. However, many designers have found that such environments require scaffolding. Providing learners with several learning sequences within the environment can help learners cope with the vast amount possibilities that open-ended environments offer. |
|
History
|
This Principle does not have versions history.
|
|
|
Login
