Lernen 4 - LRA BGL...DdseD ˛ srD Hng ˛ n u Hg ngDHeDs Dd ˆ DdnHfs DHsDdnDHgn Dd d˛ Dd nf.H˛ aDs...

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Klaus Zierer Ordinarius für Schulpädagogik

Lernen 4.0 Vom überzeugenden Einsatz und Mehrwert digitaler Medien

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

I am an evaluator

Wider einen Technisierungswahn!? Neue Medien zwischen Euphorie und Apokalypse.

Was wissen wir über den Einfluss neuer Medien auf die schulischen

Leistungen von Kindern und Jugendlichen?

Vom Informationsträger zur Informationsverarbeitung: Eine Modell zur Orientierung.

Conclusio: Pädagogik vor Technik!

Apokalypse vs. Euphorie

Synthese: Digitalisierung gehört zur Lebenswelt der Lernenden und der Lehrpersonen. Damit greift der Bildungs- und Erziehungsauftrag:

„Schulen sollen nicht nur Wissen und Können vermitteln,

sondern auch Herz und Charakter bilden.“ (BV, Art. 131)

Arbeit 4.0

Lernen 4.0

Bildung 4.0

Verwaltung 4.0

Medien-erziehung

Medien-kunde

Medien-kritik

Medien-gestal-tung

Medien-nutzung

Lernen 4.0

� HD� � Dd� : nif d Dd: se � � DdsDs � � � � �

� �

Lf s � � � � aDgn� f Dd� : d� � � s if du � gHf sn� : ng� : n� � Hu � � s gDdsDg� nHs � . 4 DH�DsgnodD� Ds D� � DHnoHDaD� �

� DdDHgn� HDnD� � DHnoHDaD� . DHeDs � HD� � HDai� ag� � � � Dd� s f � � sH� g� HD�� Dnf s Dd DHg� DHsDn� HeHg� aDs � � DdsDsn� � � u � HDnD� Dd� : nr dHng� aaHnHDdDs �. : � r vssDs � � � HDgDg� Dn� nH� � � s � � HD� � sgDdn� DH : se� � : i. : edDHiDs � � HD� iTd� � n� � f da � H D� D� � DHseDiT dg� 4 : d D� : s � Hs � Dd� � DdnHf s � Lf s � � � � � � Hn�� s 4 Ds : se � iHs Dg �

�� : DaaD � Lea� � � oHL� � r � � � � � � : s � � DDaDd� � � � � �

� DdseD � s r D� Hng� � � n� u Hg� ngDHeDs Dd� � DdnHf s � DHsDdnDHgn� Dd� � d� � Dd�nf . H� aDs � � DdsDg. : se� : s � � s DdDdnDHgn� Dd� � d� � Dd� r f esHgHLDs �� DdsDg. : se� . : sHu u g� � � 0 dDs � if aeaH� � DHs � � D� � � � � � � : d� �eDr Dss . DH� sDg� Hng� � � n� Dn� � : i � sHD dHeDu � � HLD� : � . : � DHsDd� nf . H� aDs �: s � r f esHgHLDs � � DdsDg. : se� r f u u g� � Hng� � n� � Dnf s DdD� � s � DHsDu � � D� �� nn� D� Ds � HD� nf . H� aD� : s � r f esHgHLD� � DdsDg. : se� � : i � DHsDu � f Ds �� HLD� : � � s . : nHD Das � Hng� � � : d� � Dd D: gaH� : se� DHs � � DHnoHDa � HsD� � Hdu � � � HD� LH� � � f u Do� eD� � s if du � gHf sDs � viiDsgaH� � u � � g� � nf deg� � : i � DHsDu �sHD dHeDs � � DLDa� iTd� DHsDs � � s if du � gHf snia: nn� Hs � DHsD� � H� g: se� : s �

Lernen 4.0

� � � � � r� s a� r� � rs e � � � � � re � e � � � � �

� �

ns � � i � � Lr� � � e � � � � ea� � u� � � � � � re � unse� � � � i � � � � eL� � r� � ri : � D� � � u�� e � � � ri � � � � � � � � � e � eu� u� ri sD� r� � e � � � u� u� � � � r� � ua� � � e � � � � r� � e �a n� � D� r� � � re � unse� � � e � � � � � � � � � � � use� � e � � � � a� � � � aH� � Dao � � a� � � s r� � �� e � � i i s e� � u� eaHD� uu� ri � � Lr� r� � � aur� � ru� � s e � � e � e � � � o � � u� r�� s a� � � � s u� o � r� � e � � ee � � � � ee � � s � � � � � a� r� � D� uu� ri � ns � � i � � � � � e �� s a� � u� s a� � u� o � r� � e � s e � � f e � � DD� e � r� � � aur� � ru� e � s e � � e � � � i � � ea� i �� e � � � e � r� � � r� � aa� rse� � � � r� � r � s u� � � � � r� � � u� u� o � r� � � � � ee � i i u� � a�nsagunD� � � � ns � � � e � r� augr � r� e � � e � u� f � e � � � re � unse� � �

� e � � � � a� i � � � ee � n� � � u� a� � � � � � e � � � � � � � � � � i � � � r� D� � � � � ns i � � � � � � � � �� Da� � � e � � � � e � a� � dau� i � � � � a� f e � a n� � D� r� s e � � � e � u� f � r� � � re � unse� �s e � � � � i � u� f e � � s au� s a� � � s e � � H� r� u� e � � � Hrg� u� � au� �

�

� s � � � � s � � � � re � e � Dgaau� a� � � � � � � a� � � � � � r� en� � rs e � � L� � rur� � � e � � � � Dgaau�a� � � � � � e � � � re � e � � � � � � Da� � � e � � � re � e � � � a� � r� � � � e � � � � a� � � e � � � � r� e � � �a n� � D� � s e � � � e � u� f � � � � re � unse� � � s � o � � au� � o � � e � � � � e � � � e � � � re � e �� s r� � � � � e � � � s a� � Hrg� u� � a n� � D� � s e � � � e � u� f � � � � re � unse � �� een� � � � e � u� � au� � � � � u� D� a� � � re � e � f � r� D� u� � � a� � � � D� � � � e � � � re � e � � � � �ns � a� � e � � o � � D� � a� � � e � s � � � r� e � � � r� e � � � � ro � ru� a� � � u� � � DD� r� � e � a� � au� ns i �� e � e � � � r� s � � � � enso � � a� e � � � � aa� e � � � u� � � � � a� � � � � u� D� � � � re � e � � � e �

I am an evaluator






Datengrundlage: •  über 1.400 Meta-Analysen •  ca. 80.000 Einzelstudien •  geschätzt ca. 300 Millionen Lernende Methode: Synthese von Meta-Analysen, Bestimmung von über 250 Faktoren und Berechnung von Effektstärken, die positiv und negativ sein können.

Was wirkt am besten?

Was wirkt am besten?

wirkt gut (Erwünschte Effekte)

wirkt wenig (Schulbesuchs- effekte)

wirkt kaum (Entwicklungs- effekte)

schadet (Umkehrende Effekte)

� � � � � ��

27

Das fi ktive Beispiel zur Reduzierung der Klassengröße, um diesen Gedan-ken zu Ende zu führen, würde mit d = 0,23 nur einen gewöhnlichen Schul-besuchseff ekt erzielen und wäre angesichts der damit verbundenen Kos-ten ein Faktor, der vor Einführung kritisch zu betrachten wäre. Tatsächlich ermittelt Hattie, wie dem Barometer zu entnehmen ist, eine Eff ektstärke von nur 0,21 bei einer Reduzierung der Klassengröße. Welche Konse-quenzen daraus zu ziehen sind, wird im nächsten Kapitel angesprochen.

Ausgehend von diesen Überlegungen hat Hattie über 800 Me-ta-Analysen gesammelt, gesichtet und ausgewertet. Da er sich hierbei auf eine Mittelung der vorhandenen Eff ektstärken beschränkt, bezeich-net er sein Vorgehen zu Recht als Zusammenführung (Synthese) von Meta-Analysen. Mithilfe dieser Zusammenführung gelingt es ihm, 138 Faktoren herauszufi ltern, in eine Rangfolge bezüglich des Grades ihrer

sch

adet

wirkt wenig w

irkt kaum

wirkt gut

-0,2

0

0,20,4

1,0

Klassengröße

Rang Anzahl der Meta-Analysen

Erscheinungsjahr der Meta-Analysen

113 4 1979 – 2009

d = 0,21

� � � � � � � � � � � ��

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��

� � � � � � � � � � � � ��

� � � � � � � � � � ��

Gesamt 0,33

Meta-Analysen zur Digitalisierung Erscheinungsjahr der Meta-Analyse und Effektstärke

� � � � � �

� � � � �

� � � � �

� � � �

� � � � �

� � � �

� � � � �

� � � � �

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

��

� � � � � � � � � � � �

THE CONSUMER IN A CONNECTED WORLD

Brain Drain: The Mere Presence of One’s OwnSmartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity

ADRIAN F. WARD, KRISTEN DUKE, AYELET GNEEZY, AND MAARTEN W. BOS

ABSTRACT Our smartphones enable—and encourage—constant connection to information, entertainment, andeach other. They put the world at our fingertips, and rarely leave our sides. Although these devices have immense po-tential to improve welfare, their persistent presence may come at a cognitive cost. In this research, we test the “braindrain” hypothesis that the mere presence of one’s own smartphone may occupy limited-capacity cognitive resources,thereby leaving fewer resources available for other tasks and undercutting cognitive performance. Results from twoexperiments indicate that even when people are successful at maintaining sustained attention—as when avoidingthe temptation to check their phones—the mere presence of these devices reduces available cognitive capacity. More-over, these cognitive costs are highest for those highest in smartphone dependence. We conclude by discussing thepractical implications of this smartphone-induced brain drain for consumer decision-making and consumer welfare.

We all understand the joys of our always-wired world—the connections, the validations, the laughs . . . the info. . . . But we are only beginning to getour minds around the costs.

—Andrew Sullivan (2016)

T he proliferation of smartphones has ushered in anera of unprecedented connectivity. Consumers aroundthe globe are now constantly connected to faraway

friends, endless entertainment, and virtually unlimited in-formation. With smartphones in hand, they check theweather from bed, trade stocks—and gossip—while stuckin traffic, browse potential romantic partners between ap-pointments, make online purchases while standing in-store,and live-stream each others’ experiences, in real time, fromopposite sides of the globe. Just a decade ago, this state ofconstant connection would have been inconceivable; today,it is seemingly indispensable.1 Smartphone owners interactwith their phones an average of 85 times a day, includingimmediately upon waking up, just before going to sleep,and even in the middle of the night (Perlow 2012; Andrewset al. 2015; dscout 2016). Ninety-one percent report that

they never leave home without their phones (DeutscheTelekom 2012), and 46% say that they couldn’t live withoutthem (Pew Research Center 2015). These revolutionary de-vices enable on-demand access to friends, family, col-leagues, companies, brands, retailers, cat videos, and muchmore. They represent all that the connected world has to of-fer, condensed into a device that fits in the palm of one’shand—and almost never leaves one’s side.

The sharp penetration of smartphones, both acrossglobal markets and into consumers’ everyday lives, repre-sents a phenomenon high in “meaning and mattering”(e.g., Kernan 1979; Mick 2006)—one that has the potentialto affect the welfare of billions of consumers worldwide.As individuals increasingly turn to smartphone screensfor managing and enhancing their daily lives, we mustask how dependence on these devices affects the ability to

Adrian F. Ward ([email protected]) is an assistant professor of marketing in the McCombs School of Business, University of Texas at Austin,2110 Speedway, Austin, TX 78712. Kristen Duke ([email protected]) is a PhD candidate in marketing at the Rady School of Management, Uni-versity of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093. Ayelet Gneezy ([email protected]) is an associate professor of behavioral sciencesand marketing at the Rady School of Management, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093. Maarten W. Bos ([email protected]) is a research scientist at Disney Research, 4720 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. The authors thank Jiyoung Lee, StephanieSchwartz, Yael Horwitz, and the Atkinson Behavioral Lab for research assistance.

1. In 2007, only 4% of American adults owned smartphones (Radwanick 2012). As of January 2017, 77% of American adults—and 92% of those underthe age of 35—own smartphones (Pew Research Center 2017). Penetration is similarly high in most Western nations, and even higher in several MiddleEastern and Asian countries. South Korea, for example, has a national smartphone ownership rate of 88%, including 100% of those under 35 (Pew ResearchCenter 2016).

JACR, volume 2, number 2. Published online April 3, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/691462© 2017 the Association for Consumer Research. All rights reserved. 2378-1815/2017/0202-0009$10.00

This content downloaded from 217.088.253.053 on November 30, 2017 23:40:11 PMAll use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).

THE CONSUMER IN A CONNECTED WORLD

Brain Drain: The Mere Presence of One’s OwnSmartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity

ADRIAN F. WARD, KRISTEN DUKE, AYELET GNEEZY, AND MAARTEN W. BOS

ABSTRACT Our smartphones enable—and encourage—constant connection to information, entertainment, andeach other. They put the world at our fingertips, and rarely leave our sides. Although these devices have immense po-tential to improve welfare, their persistent presence may come at a cognitive cost. In this research, we test the “braindrain” hypothesis that the mere presence of one’s own smartphone may occupy limited-capacity cognitive resources,thereby leaving fewer resources available for other tasks and undercutting cognitive performance. Results from twoexperiments indicate that even when people are successful at maintaining sustained attention—as when avoidingthe temptation to check their phones—the mere presence of these devices reduces available cognitive capacity. More-over, these cognitive costs are highest for those highest in smartphone dependence. We conclude by discussing thepractical implications of this smartphone-induced brain drain for consumer decision-making and consumer welfare.

We all understand the joys of our always-wired world—the connections, the validations, the laughs . . . the info. . . . But we are only beginning to getour minds around the costs.

—Andrew Sullivan (2016)

T he proliferation of smartphones has ushered in anera of unprecedented connectivity. Consumers aroundthe globe are now constantly connected to faraway

friends, endless entertainment, and virtually unlimited in-formation. With smartphones in hand, they check theweather from bed, trade stocks—and gossip—while stuckin traffic, browse potential romantic partners between ap-pointments, make online purchases while standing in-store,and live-stream each others’ experiences, in real time, fromopposite sides of the globe. Just a decade ago, this state ofconstant connection would have been inconceivable; today,it is seemingly indispensable.1 Smartphone owners interactwith their phones an average of 85 times a day, includingimmediately upon waking up, just before going to sleep,and even in the middle of the night (Perlow 2012; Andrewset al. 2015; dscout 2016). Ninety-one percent report that

they never leave home without their phones (DeutscheTelekom 2012), and 46% say that they couldn’t live withoutthem (Pew Research Center 2015). These revolutionary de-vices enable on-demand access to friends, family, col-leagues, companies, brands, retailers, cat videos, and muchmore. They represent all that the connected world has to of-fer, condensed into a device that fits in the palm of one’shand—and almost never leaves one’s side.

The sharp penetration of smartphones, both acrossglobal markets and into consumers’ everyday lives, repre-sents a phenomenon high in “meaning and mattering”(e.g., Kernan 1979; Mick 2006)—one that has the potentialto affect the welfare of billions of consumers worldwide.As individuals increasingly turn to smartphone screensfor managing and enhancing their daily lives, we mustask how dependence on these devices affects the ability to

Adrian F. Ward ([email protected]) is an assistant professor of marketing in the McCombs School of Business, University of Texas at Austin,2110 Speedway, Austin, TX 78712. Kristen Duke ([email protected]) is a PhD candidate in marketing at the Rady School of Management, Uni-versity of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093. Ayelet Gneezy ([email protected]) is an associate professor of behavioral sciencesand marketing at the Rady School of Management, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093. Maarten W. Bos ([email protected]) is a research scientist at Disney Research, 4720 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. The authors thank Jiyoung Lee, StephanieSchwartz, Yael Horwitz, and the Atkinson Behavioral Lab for research assistance.

1. In 2007, only 4% of American adults owned smartphones (Radwanick 2012). As of January 2017, 77% of American adults—and 92% of those underthe age of 35—own smartphones (Pew Research Center 2017). Penetration is similarly high in most Western nations, and even higher in several MiddleEastern and Asian countries. South Korea, for example, has a national smartphone ownership rate of 88%, including 100% of those under 35 (Pew ResearchCenter 2016).

JACR, volume 2, number 2. Published online April 3, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/691462© 2017 the Association for Consumer Research. All rights reserved. 2378-1815/2017/0202-0009$10.00

This content downloaded from 217.088.253.053 on November 30, 2017 23:40:11 PMAll use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).

Psychological Science1 –10© The Author(s) 2014Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0956797614524581pss.sagepub.com

Research Article

The use of laptops in classrooms is controversial. Many professors believe that computers (and the Internet) serve as distractions, detracting from class discussion and student learning (e.g., Yamamoto, 2007). Conversely, stu-dents often self-report a belief that laptops in class are beneficial (e.g., Barak, Lipson, & Lerman, 2006; Mitra & Steffensmeier, 2000; Skolnick & Puzo, 2008). Even when students admit that laptops are a distraction, they believe the benefits outweigh the costs (Kay & Lauricella, 2011). Empirical research tends to support the professors’ view, finding that students using laptops are not on task during lectures (Kay & Lauricella, 2011; Kraushaar & Novak, 2010; Skolnick & Puzo, 2008; Sovern, 2013), show decreased academic performance (Fried, 2008; Grace-Martin & Gay, 2001; Kraushaar & Novak, 2010), and are actually less satisfied with their education than their peers who do not use laptops in class (Wurst, Smarkola, & Gaffney, 2008).

These correlational studies have focused on the capac-ity of laptops to distract and to invite multitasking. Experimental tests of immediate retention of class mate-rial have also found that Internet browsing impairs per-formance (Hembrooke & Gay, 2003). These findings are

important but relatively unsurprising, given the literature on decrements in performance when multitasking or task switching (e.g., Iqbal & Horvitz, 2007; Rubinstein, Meyer, & Evans, 2001).

However, even when distractions are controlled for, laptop use might impair performance by affecting the manner and quality of in-class note taking. There is a substantial literature on the general effectiveness of note taking in educational settings, but it mostly predates lap-top use in classrooms. Prior research has focused on two ways in which note taking can affect learning: encoding and external storage (see DiVesta & Gray, 1972; Kiewra, 1989). The encoding hypothesis suggests that the pro-cessing that occurs during the act of note taking improves learning and retention. The external-storage hypothesis touts the benefits of the ability to review material (even from notes taken by someone else). These two theories are not incompatible; students who both take and review

524581 PSSXXX10.1177/0956797614524581Mueller, OppenheimerLonghand and Laptop Note Takingresearch-article2014

Corresponding Author:Pam A. Mueller, Princeton University, Psychology Department, Princeton, NJ 08544 E-mail: [email protected]

The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking

Pam A. Mueller1 and Daniel M. Oppenheimer21Princeton University and 2University of California, Los Angeles

AbstractTaking notes on laptops rather than in longhand is increasingly common. Many researchers have suggested that laptop note taking is less effective than longhand note taking for learning. Prior studies have primarily focused on students’ capacity for multitasking and distraction when using laptops. The present research suggests that even when laptops are used solely to take notes, they may still be impairing learning because their use results in shallower processing. In three studies, we found that students who took notes on laptops performed worse on conceptual questions than students who took notes longhand. We show that whereas taking more notes can be beneficial, laptop note takers’ tendency to transcribe lectures verbatim rather than processing information and reframing it in their own words is detrimental to learning.

Keywordsacademic achievement, cognitive processes, memory, educational psychology, open data, open materials

Received 5/11/13; Revision accepted 1/16/14

Psychological Science OnlineFirst, published on May 22, 2014 as doi:10.1177/0956797614524581

El � nMee� l � M� � � � � E� l � � M� � e� MnEe� � � � � EerMl � � l �

� �

�

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��

� � � � � i ru � F� E� Er� nEeE� Ml � � � � E� � � eul � � � f � � L � � � � � � � D� � � E� r�f Er� � El � � � � � i rerh i � � dul � � � � � � � El � � � � � � rnE� � � � � � i rerh i � � � � E� �� t l � � � nE� � � l � � M� � � � � � � l � � ? � Ml � � dE� nn� E� r� eEl � � eE� � � e� � � E� � El �� eul � � � � r� Ml � � � � Ee� � � � l � � � a � r� � El � � � E� Er� nEeE� Ml � �u� � � l n� � � l � i Ll l � l � � � Er En� � � dul � r� � l Ee� � l � Ml � � l e� � � r� l � Eer� � e�f L� nE� � � � � l � l � � l � f Er� � � eul � � � f � � L � � � � � � � � Ml eE� r� � � e�eE� r� � � cM� f � � � l � � El l � r� e� E� � l � � � � � � l � � � � � EeM� nEeE� Ml � � � t �� M� � � Ml � � � l � � � � � � l � � � � � � es � � nE� Ml � � � t � � nEl � � � � � t � � E� e� �� l � l � � � � f L� nE� r� � E� Er� nEeE� Ml � � � El � � l � M� � � u f � � � � � � Enl � f � �� f � � l r� E� r� � � � e� � � Er� � l � ch n� l � cM� � E� e� f � � � i ru � � l r� d� l rEul e�s u� � f f � � � � E� � � � l � l � � � f Er� � � eul � � � f � � L � � � � � � � � du � � nn� f �� E� � � � � Eee� l e� l � E� l Ml � � Ml � � El eu� � l � � M� � � � l � � � l � l � � � �� s u� Mi rEul � Ml � � � � u � � l Ee� rEul � Ml r� ert rc� l � � � � e� i � l l �� EesE� nea � Ee� � � l � Mr� � M � � r� � l Ee� � � � � � � � l � � � e� � � l � � a E� � eE� �

1. Grund: Falsche Erwartungen.

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

� �

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��

� i � gntl ernAni ni � � bnccni � rlb� � ntnrbl � � i vnscai vni � � A� l l � � nti ni � � ri l � b, � ai A� � i l btni vai v�nt dtAntb� � ah � i � ee � cbrv� , a � l nri � � � ri Ani � ni blStn eni An� L � ai vlSe� lni � i r eb� lb� bb� � A� i i �gntcrntb� l r e � A� l � h f el � h � ntk dt� ni n� � rl lni � � � � nt � k � i i � btrbb� Ant� � dh ni b� Anl � � ntvnl lni l �nri � � � i � Ant� � l u edcdvrn� vr� b� nl � ernt, a � nri n� � nren� gdi � � dtl eai vni � � � h � � ns � i i bnlbni � rlb� Arn�l dvni � i i bn� � ntvnl lni lsatgn� gdi � � nth � i i � � � � ri ve� al � � Arn� gdt � � avni � f etb� � A� l l � Ant � � d�h ni b� Anl � � ntvnl lni l � h rb� Anh � � dh ni b� Anl � � ntsni l � nri lnb, b� � gvc� � � � � ri ve� al � � � � �

�� r eb� i at � Arn� � dtl eai vni � gdi � � � � ri ve� al � , nrvni � � A� l l � h ri Anlbni l � l n el � � rl � � eb� � rnAnt�edcai vni � i dbk ni Arv� l ri A� � ah � nri n� � i dth � brdi � gdh � � at, , nrbvnAE ebi rl � ri l � � � i v, nrbvn�AE ebi rl � , a � � tri vni � � � dcvni � Arnln� � rnAntedcai vni � i r eb� � a � Ani � � nti Std, nl l � � A� i i � i rh h b�A� l � � ntvnl lni � l nri ni � � � a � . � ai A� � cl � � netSntldi � s � i i � h � i � l r e � l r ent � l nri � � A� l l � � � cA� i r ebl �h net � gdi � Anh � � k � l � h � i � gnth rbbnci � k dccbn� � � a � � nrbni � Ant� � nti ni Ani � i d e � gdte� i Ani � rlb� �

� � tah � rvi dtrntb� � eacn� ai A� � i bnttr eb� Arnln� ai A� h ni b� cni � � tsni i bi rl ln� l d� eEa rv� �� tah � e � � ni � grncn� Arn� � a � l l ai v� � A� l l � nl � tnr eb� � Ani � � nti ni Ani � nri h � c� nbk � l � , a � l � vni � �A� h rb� Arnln� A� l � f t � rh h nt � vnlSnr entb� e � � ni � � � � tah � vc� a � ni � grncn� rh h nt � i d e � � A� l l � � nt �i ni � � � vnl ecdl lni � rlb� � k ni i � Ant� � nti ni An� nri h � c� vn, nrvb� e � b� � A� l l � nt � nbk � l � s � i i � � � � tah �e � b� L � ni � nri n� l d� i nv� brgn� � di i db� brdi � ri � h � i eni � � tnrlni � � � l � rlb� ez elbn� � nrb� � Arnlni �SEA� vdvrl eni � � ttvc� a � ni � , a � sdttrvrntni � ai A� L � ai v� � � ri l � b, � ai A� � i l btni vai v� nri ni � nlbni �� c� b, � ri � Ant� rA� sbrs � , a, alStn eni � � � l � h ni l ecr en� � nerti � � t � a eb� � cc� A� l � � l nei b� l r e �i � e � e � tbnt � � t � nrb� � nh , a dcvn� , Eecb� nl � , at � � td nl l rdi � crbEb� gdi � � netSntldi ni � � Ani � � i bnt �tr eb� ld� , a � vnlb� cbni � � A� l l � ent � al dtAnti An� � tnvnch Eorvn� ai A� grnc Ecbrvn� L � ai vlSe� lni �ni be� cbni � l ri A� � �

2. Grund: Falsche Programmierung.

vs.

3. Grund: Falsche Pädagogik.

Lernen bleibt Lernen.

... Einsatz und Anstrengung. ... Kooperation und Austausch.

... Umwege und Irrwege. ... positive Beziehungen.

Erfolgreiches Lernen erfordert ...

... Fehler. ... Herausforderungen anstatt Unter- oder

Überforderungen. ... intensive Gespräche und Rückmeldungen.

... eine gemeinsame Vision.

Digitalisierung kann im Unterricht hilfreich sein, wenn sie kein Selbstzweck ist, sondern ... ... die Lernausgangslage berücksichtigt, ... herausfordert, ... Vertrauen aufbaut, ... Fehler sichtbar macht und ... Gespräche über den eigenen Lernprozess initiiert.

Konsequenz

I am an evaluator






Ruben C. Puentedura

SAMR-Modell

SAMR-Modell

d>0.4 d<0.4

Die Frage des „Warum“ klären!

„Im Zentrum steht der Mensch.“

„Der Ort der Bildung ist die Interaktion zwischen Menschen.“

I am an evaluator






Technisch möglich ...

Technisch möglich ...

?

... pädagogisch sinnvoll?

„Wichtiger als das, was wir tun, ist, wie und

warum wir das, was wir tun, machen.“

Klaus Zierer: K3W

Ich entwickle positive Beziehungen. Ich sehe Lernen als harte Arbeit. Ich setze die Herausforderung. Schülerleistungen sind eine Rückmeldung für mich über mich.

Ich informiere alle über die Sprache des Lernens. Ich benutze Dialog anstelle von Monolog.

Haltungen Ich bin ein Veränderungsagent.

Ich bin ein Evaluator. Ich rede über Lernen, nicht über Lehren. Ich arbeite mit anderen Lehrpersonen zusammen. �

„Denn es ist zuletzt doch nur der Geist, der jede Technik lebendig macht.“

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Klaus Zierer Ordinarius für Schulpädagogik

Lernen 4.0 Vom überzeugenden Einsatz und Mehrwert digitaler Medien

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

Lernen 4 - LRA BGL...DdseD ˛ srD Hng ˛ n u Hg ngDHeDs Dd ˆ DdnHfs DHsDdnDHgn Dd d˛ Dd nf.H˛ aDs...

Documents

Transcript of Lernen 4 - LRA BGL...DdseD ˛ srD Hng ˛ n u Hg ngDHeDs Dd ˆ DdnHfs DHsDdnDHgn Dd d˛ Dd nf.H˛ aDs...