1. The effect of goals on use of educational software Presenter: Che-Yu Lin Advisor: Ming-Puu Chen Date: 2009/09/02 1 Hussein, Z. & Stern, L. (2008, January). The effect of goals on use of educational software. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 5640-5645). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/29161.http://www.editlib.org/p/29161

2. Introduction(1/2) Educational software is designed and built to support learning of concepts, rather than to accomplish concrete tasks. Students who use educational software generally have a motivating goal for using the software. Educational goals may include running the software for review of subject material, for remedial work, for guidance with a specific assessment task, for learning new concepts or information, among others. Most of the published educationally-oriented evaluation studies focus on learning outcomes, rather than on the process whereby students use software to engage with the subject material (Reeves & Hedberg 2003). 2

3. Introduction(2/2) We have examining student behavior in different educational contexts, using two different computer-based educational learning tools, and relate this behavior to educational goals. Two target educational software applications were used in this study: Algorithms in Action (AiA) and Simulation Modules for Learning Engineering Designs (SiMLED). Both AiA and SiMLED are open-ended educational software applications designed by academic staff at The University of Melbourne. Both applications allow students a considerable amount of freedom with respect to how to use the software to support their learning goals. 3

4. Algorithms in Action Figure 1: Screenshots of AiA: (a) running the Quicksort algorithm (b) running the 234-Tree algorithm 4

5. SiMLED Figure 2: Screenshots of SiMLED, Columns Module: (a) the 3D responder and Shape controller is selected (b) the Graph responder and Materials controller is selected 5

6. 6 Method Qualitative methods used include observation sessions, semi- structured group interviews and individual interviews. Quantitative methods included collection and analysis of log files from learning sessions and use of questionnaires.

7. Results(1/2) 7 Project vs. non-project sessions

8. Results(2/2) 8 Learning New Material vs. Revision Direct observation of students during sessions involving unknown algorithms indicated greater concentration and slower pacing. Task-oriented behaviour of the students, with less attention was given to the surrounding environment and less fidgeting. Educator vs. Student Goals The designers of AiA had not foreseen that the software would be used for project-related work at all, but had envisioned AiA primarily as a learning tool for general understanding and remedial purposes. SiMLED was used primarily as a calculator, rather than as an exploration learning tool, as envisioned by the designers.

9. Conclusions 9 Our results suggest that articulation of educational goals is important in evaluation of educational software. Vicente and Pain (2002) have defined motivation in emotional terms such as satisfaction, sensory interest, cognitive interest, confidence and effort. Our findings have been that students are able to work out effective strategies to achieve their goals when given choices in how they use a software application. Johansson (1998) found that students find learning from example code easier than learning from traditional textbook material. Stasko, Badre and Lewis (Stasko et al. 1993) reported that animation is most effective when accompanied by comprehensive descriptions.