Abstract
Technology is changing the way students interact with knowledge, and open-ended activities are one of the main types of tasks that students engage with in technology-rich environments. However, the amount of guidance needed to promote learning in these environments remains unknown. We explore this issue by focusing on the effects of step-by-step versus generic instructions on student’s exploratory behavior and arousal levels. In this experiment, students completed three computer-based activities within a physics simulation software: building a tower, building a bridge and a free task. We did not find any effect of our experimental manipulation on students’ task performance. We found, however, that detailed instruction induced higher level of activation followed by a relaxation phase and a recovery of the activation level in the last segment of the task (U-shaped curve). On the other hand, generic instructions seemed to lead students into a continuous relaxation pattern along the task (decreasing slope). Moreover, low and high-aroused students appear to be affected by the instructions differently, with high-aroused students at baseline showing less cognitive flexibility. Finally, we observed carryover effects, where types of instruction kept influencing students’ levels of activation in a following open-ended task. We discuss implications of those results for designing learning activities in constructionist, technology-rich environments.
Highlights
IntroductionProgressive educators have advocated the use of project-based, student-centered pedagogies for decades (Freire 1970; Papert 1980, 2000; Piaget 1964; Ultanir 2012), and recently this work has received a renewed attention with the explosive growth of the ‘‘maker’’ movement (Blikstein and Krannich 2013; Blikstein 2013), FabLabs (Posch and Fitzpatrick 2012; Stacey 2014), and low cost technologies for rapid prototyping (e.g., Sipitakiat et al 2004)
We focused on exploration because it is a main factor for creativity (Carroll 2011; Picciuto and Carruthers 2014) and we expected that students receiving generic instruction would be more spontaneous and exploratory, creating original objects or modifying the ready-made ones in order to fit in their own ideas for the Tower or the Bridge
We look at the effect of detailed versus generic instructions on activation patterns as measured by the Skin conductance (SC) sensor
Summary
Progressive educators have advocated the use of project-based, student-centered pedagogies for decades (Freire 1970; Papert 1980, 2000; Piaget 1964; Ultanir 2012), and recently this work has received a renewed attention with the explosive growth of the ‘‘maker’’ movement (Blikstein and Krannich 2013; Blikstein 2013), FabLabs (Posch and Fitzpatrick 2012; Stacey 2014), and low cost technologies for rapid prototyping (e.g., Sipitakiat et al 2004). The use of new technologies for project-based learning has sparked an effusive debate amongst educators about their effectiveness and integration with traditional classroom curriculum. Researchers have been seeking empirical evidence to determine how effective different pedagogical approaches are, such as explicit teaching versus discovery learning, technology-based versus traditional media, and ‘‘tell-and-practice’’ versus handson approaches (see Bishop and Verleger 2013; Schneider et al 2013). The exploration and exploitation dilemma (defined below) was proposed by March (1991) as an adaptive behavioral mechanism in organizational learning, and others have recently associated it to cognitive processes such as creativity (Chae et al 2013; Chae and Lee 2011) and attentional engagement mediated by neuromodulatory mechanism and arousal activation in problemsolving tasks (Laureiro-Martınez et al 2010; Jepma and Nieuwenhuis 2011)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
