4.7 Article

Improving literacy and metacognition with electronic portfolios: Teaching and learning with ePEARL

期刊

COMPUTERS & EDUCATION
卷 55, 期 1, 页码 84-91

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.005

关键词

Literacy; Electronic portfolios; Metacognition; Technology; Constructivism; Elementary education; Evaluation of CAL systems; Teaching/learning strategies

资金

  1. Canadian Council on Learning
  2. Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network
  3. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Canada)
  4. Fonds Quebecois de la Recherche sur la Societe et la Culture (Quebec)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Can an electronic portfolio that is both a multimedia container for student work and a tool to support key learning processes have a positive impact on the literacy practices and self-regulated learning skills of students? This article presents the findings of a yearlong study conducted in three Canadian provinces during the 2007-2008 school year initially involving 32 teachers and 388 students Due to varying levels of implementation our final data set included 14 teachers and 296 students Using a non-equivalent pre-test/post-test design, we found that grade 4-6 students who were in classrooms where the teacher provided regular and appropriate use of the electronic portfolio tool ePEARL e.. medium-high implementation condition, n = 7 classrooms and 121 students), compared to control students (n = 7 classrooms and 175 students) who did not use ePEARL, showed significant improvements (p < .05) in their writing skills on a standardized literacy measure (i.e., the constructed response subtest of the Canadian Achievement Test-4th ed) and certain metacognitive skills measured via student self-report The results of this study indicate that teaching with ePEARL has positive impacts on students' literacy and self-regulated learning skills when the tool is used regularly and Integrated into classroom instruction (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据