Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

About: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Curriculum & Higher education. The organization has 1798 authors who have published 3807 publications receiving 193985 citations. The organization is also known as: Ontario College of Education & OISE.

Unpacking Corporeal Mobilities: The Global Voyages of Labour and Leisure:

Abstract: Concepts of mobility are rapidly moving across disciplines, as scholars grapple with the complexities of movement that characterise our world today. Although not a new phenomenon, the conditions of globalisation have facilitated the movement of a record number of people; individuals who are crossing international borders for work, leisure, safety, and security. Among these groups of people, tourists and labour migrants account for the largest groups traveling worldwide. Although abundant scholarly research is available on the transnational voyages of both groups, in this paper I seek to juxtapose a subset of these two types of movement—backpackers and seasonal workers—to investigate how these mobilities are determined, articulated, and shape various identities of the actors involved. Moreover, by referring to material, juridical, and spatial conditions that facilitate the mobility of these two groups, I will examine who is benefiting from these manifold movements and whether these mobilities represent new...

An Analysis of Methods Used to Examine Gender Differences in Computer-Related Behavior

Abstract: A comprehensive review of the literature of gender differences in computer-related behavior reveals a myriad of conflicting results. A critical analysis of the empirical methods used to collect data is offered as one means of sorting out the numerous inconsistencies found. Nine areas are discussed where common mistakes are made, including 1) sample selection, 2) sample size, 3) scale development, 4) scale quality, 5) the use of univariate and multivariate analyses, 6) regression analysis, 7) construct definition, 8) construct testing, and 9) the presentation of results. It is concluded that although a number of researchers have fallen prey to making these mistakes, in most cases, easy remedies are available. Above all, researchers are encouraged to present more detailed and clear information regarding methods and results.

A Study of Kohlberg’s Structural Theory of Moral Development: a Critique of Liberal Social Science Ideology

Abstract: This article attempts a critical analysis of Kohlberg’s stage theory of moral development in the context of an ideology critique. From this point of view, Kohlberg’s

Measuring cognitive load: performance, mental effort and simulation task complexity.

Abstract: Context Interest in applying cognitive load theory in health care simulation is growing. This line of inquiry requires measures that are sensitive to changes in cognitive load arising from different instructional designs. Recently, mental effort ratings and secondary task performance have shown promise as measures of cognitive load in health care simulation. Objectives We investigate the sensitivity of these measures to predicted differences in intrinsic load arising from variations in task complexity and learner expertise during simulation-based surgical skills training. Methods We randomly assigned 28 novice medical students to simulation training on a simple or complex surgical knot-tying task. Participants completed 13 practice trials, interspersed with computer-based video instruction. On trials 1, 5, 9 and 13, knot-tying performance was assessed using time and movement efficiency measures, and cognitive load was assessed using subjective rating of mental effort (SRME) and simple reaction time (SRT) on a vibrotactile stimulus-monitoring secondary task. Results Significant improvements in knot-tying performance (F(1.04,24.95) = 41.1, p < 0.001 for movements; F(1.04,25.90) = 49.9, p < 0.001 for time) and reduced cognitive load (F(2.3,58.5) = 57.7, p < 0.001 for SRME; F(1.8,47.3) = 10.5, p < 0.001 for SRT) were observed in both groups during training. The simple-task group demonstrated superior knot tying (F(1,24) = 5.2, p = 0.031 for movements; F(1,24) = 6.5, p = 0.017 for time) and a faster decline in SRME over the first five trials (F(1,26) = 6.45, p = 0.017) compared with their peers. Although SRT followed a similar pattern, group differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions Both secondary task performance and mental effort ratings are sensitive to changes in intrinsic load among novices engaged in simulation-based learning. These measures can be used to track cognitive load during skills training. Mental effort ratings are also sensitive to small differences in intrinsic load arising from variations in the physical complexity of a simulation task. The complementary nature of these subjective and objective measures suggests their combined use is advantageous in simulation instructional design research.