Digital Video Tools in the Classroom: How to Support Meaningful Collaboration and Critical Advanced Thinking of Students? - New Science of Learning - page 503

Concerning the third question, we found that tools do not support the overall
design process (e.g., the amount of time devoted to planning, acting, evaluating, and
revising), thus leaving the need of and room for explicit instructional modulation by
an educator—especially the support of planning, evaluation and revision of design
products by students.
Concerning the practical implications of our findings, we infer that constructive
video tools can be directly integrated into regular educational practice and respec-
tive curricula support learning processes and new media/visual skills acquisition.
However, the effects of implicit guidance by technological affordances need to be
considered as an important factor in computer-supported learning by teachers with
regard to the educational goals and applied teaching strategies. Studying them also
means providing information for effective integration in the classroom, namely, the
instructional integration of such tasks by the teacher who can make use of a tool's
affordances for the learning goals. According to Oser & Baeriswyl, 2001), an edu-
cator's profession is to orchestrate teaching and learning processes. In line with this,
learning activities and socio-cognitive processes afforded by the educational tech-
nologies in use can be seen as supportive to both these instructional aspects. As a
result, in future studies we will seek to investigate the when and how of explicit
instructional support of teachers and thus address their role as facilitating catalyst
for (a) optimizing learners' problem solving within the joint problem space of a
complex visual design tasks, as well as for (b) successful integration of these tasks
into classroom instruction.
Acknowledgments This work was partly supported by a grant from the National Science
Foundation (NSF REC 0354453) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [German Research
Foundation] (DFG ZA 524/1-1). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in the chap-
ter are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsoring agencies.
Thanks to Benjamin Klages, Julia Vowinkel, and Alla Trofimovskaja for helping during the field
experiment. Any correspondence concerning this chapter should be addressed to Dr. Carmen Zahn,
Knowledge Media Research Center, Konrad-Adenauer-Strasse 40, D-72072 Tuebingen, Germany,
phone: [phone]. Electronic mail may be sent to [e-mail].
References
Alby, T. (2007). Web 2.0: Konzepte, Anwendungen, Technologien . Muenchen: Hanser
Fachbuchverlag.
Baacke, D. (1999a). Medienkompetenz als zentrales Operationsfeld von Projekten. In D. Baacke,
S. Kornblum, J. Lauffer, L. Mikos, &G. A. Thiele (Eds.), Handbuch Medien: Medienkompetenz
- Modelle und Projekte (pp. 31-35). Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.
Baacke, D. (1999b). Projekte als Formen der Medienarbeit. In D. Baacke, S. Kornblum, J. Lauffer,
L.Mikos,&G.A.Thiele(Eds.), Handbuch Medien: Medienkompetenz - Modelle und Projekte
(pp. 86-93). Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.
Barron, B. (2003). When Smart Groups Fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences , 12 , 307-359.
Beichner, R. J. (1994). Multimedia editing to promote science learning. Journal of Computers in
Mathematics and Science Teaching , 13 , 147-162.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of written composition . Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.