Katarzyna Kostyrka-Allchorne1, Amanda Holland2, Nicholas R Cooper3, Woakil Ahamed3, Rachel K Marrow4, Andrew Simpson3. 1. Department of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK. Electronic address: kasia.kostyrka-allchorne@kcl.ac.uk. 2. School of Social Sciences, London Metropolitan University, London, UK. 3. Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, UK. 4. School of Health and Social Care, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
Abstract
AIMS: What helps children learn: is it a presence of a live teacher or an interaction with the learning materials? Addressing this question, we manipulated a teacher's presence (on-screen vs. present) and activity (observing vs. doing) while teaching children about the properties of geometric shapes. METHOD: Five-year-olds (n = 215) completed two shape-sorting tasks in which they distinguished between typical, atypical and non-valid shapes. In between these tasks, they took part in one of four training sessions: doing teacher-present, observing teacher-present, doing teacher-on-screen and observing teacher-on-screen. RESULTS: Although children's shape knowledge improved across all training conditions, learning showed an interaction between teacher presence and task difficulty. In a teacher's presence, children learned more about the most difficult (atypical) shapes, irrespective of activity. It may be the social interaction, associated with a teacher's presence, that enhances learning. Conversely, physically taking part in interactive touchscreen training did not result in more learning than passive screen viewing.
AIMS: What helps children learn: is it a presence of a live teacher or an interaction with the learning materials? Addressing this question, we manipulated a teacher's presence (on-screen vs. present) and activity (observing vs. doing) while teaching children about the properties of geometric shapes. METHOD: Five-year-olds (n = 215) completed two shape-sorting tasks in which they distinguished between typical, atypical and non-valid shapes. In between these tasks, they took part in one of four training sessions: doing teacher-present, observing teacher-present, doing teacher-on-screen and observing teacher-on-screen. RESULTS: Although children's shape knowledge improved across all training conditions, learning showed an interaction between teacher presence and task difficulty. In a teacher's presence, children learned more about the most difficult (atypical) shapes, irrespective of activity. It may be the social interaction, associated with a teacher's presence, that enhances learning. Conversely, physically taking part in interactive touchscreen training did not result in more learning than passive screen viewing.