| Project/Area Number |
15200020
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
Cognitive science
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Chukyo University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
MIYAKE Naomi Chukyo University, School of Information Sciences and Technology, Professor, 情報理工学部, 教授 (00174144)
|
|---|
| Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha) |
MIYAKE Yoshio Chukyo University, School of Information Sciences and Technology, Professor, 情報理工学部, 教授 (80099910)
OGASAWARA Hidemi Chukyo University, School of Information Sciences and Technology, Associate Professor, 情報理工学部, 助教授 (60204054)
TSUCHIYA Takafumi Chukyo University, School of Information Sciences and Technology, Associate Professor, 情報理工学部, 助教授 (10227431)
SHIROUZU Hajime Chukyo University, School of Information Sciences and Technology, Assistant Professor, 情報理工学部, 講師 (60333168)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2003 – 2006
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2006)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥51,090,000 (Direct Cost: ¥39,300,000、Indirect Cost: ¥11,790,000)
Fiscal Year 2006: ¥7,540,000 (Direct Cost: ¥5,800,000、Indirect Cost: ¥1,740,000)
Fiscal Year 2005: ¥12,480,000 (Direct Cost: ¥9,600,000、Indirect Cost: ¥2,880,000)
Fiscal Year 2004: ¥15,080,000 (Direct Cost: ¥11,600,000、Indirect Cost: ¥3,480,000)
Fiscal Year 2003: ¥15,990,000 (Direct Cost: ¥12,300,000、Indirect Cost: ¥3,690,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | Theories of collaborative learning / Knowledge integration / Learning sciences / Teaching of cognitive science / Concept mapping tool / Dynamic jigsaw / Support for reflection |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
This study aimed at clarifying the processes of active knowledge construction in professional domains through long term learning lasting two to four years, so that we could better develop effective learning environments for undergraduate students' learning of a new domain. We developed and tested a collaborative undergraduate curriculum to teach cognitive science since 2003. The learning objective is to learn the pragmatic value of cognitive science, to be able to use it for most of what we do in our everyday lives. The curriculum is for undergraduate students and covers two semesters per year, taking four years to complete. In the first year, hands-on experiences of simple cognitive tasks are completed and analyzed by the students, first individually and then collectively, in the class. These experience-based techniques are gradually meshed into reading activities of technical materials, to help students gain a deeper level of comprehension as well as to grasp the breadth of research
… More
in this area. In the third to fourth years they are encouraged to engage in more inquiry-oriented, project-based learning, leading to their graduation research. Throughout the curriculum, we devised new ways to use the jigsaw method. In our curriculum, students are introduced to a simple jigsaw of two to three parts, gradually moving on to a more structured and dynamic jigsaw that covers twenty to thirty research findings. These collaboratively reflective activities were also supported by a computer based concept mapping tool, to support the students' externalization of their initial hypotheses or ideas so that they could collaboratively reflect upon them, to help themselves construct their own understandings.
We found that this approach increased the integrity of learning. We also found increase in the extendibility measure, or the degree to which the students could connect what they learned to their daily experiences, indicating the learning activity of externalizing their integration efforts had a positive effect in fostering their thinking toward application of what they learned. The students' explanations became more concise, in terms of both the amount of time used and the content covered. We have also identified some cases where the students, in their junior years, talk about their experiences of the dynamic jigsaw as a source of various research skills. These results are promising enough to encourage us to further explore the conditions that make collaborative learning situations more productive. Less
|
