c omputer s upported c ollaborative l earning n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
C(omputer) S(upported) C(ollaborative) L(earning) PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
C(omputer) S(upported) C(ollaborative) L(earning)

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 49

C(omputer) S(upported) C(ollaborative) L(earning) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 120 Views
  • Uploaded on

C(omputer) S(upported) C(ollaborative) L(earning) . CSCL assumptions? Learning is knowledge sharing Learning is the co-construction of meaning Learning is the negotiation of meaning “Leren is samen leren” Argumentative writing. Utrecht Interactive Learning Group (ILG).

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'C(omputer) S(upported) C(ollaborative) L(earning)' - beate


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
c omputer s upported c ollaborative l earning
C(omputer) S(upported) C(ollaborative) L(earning)

CSCL assumptions?

  • Learning is knowledge sharing
  • Learning is the co-construction of meaning
  • Learning is the negotiation of meaning

“Leren is samen leren”

Argumentative writing

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

utrecht interactive learning group ilg
Utrecht Interactive Learning Group (ILG)
  • CSCL: Focus on the process of collaboration in argumentation, writing and project-based learning
  • Use of (cognitive) tools:
    • Synchronous and a-synchronous communication
    • tools for planning, organizing and linearization
    • Text and graphics
  • Own environments with shared editor (TC3 & VCRI)
  • Analyses of dialogues with MEPA (Erkens)
  • Organization:
    • 2 EU-projects (DUNES and SCALE: Andriessen)
    • 4 projects funded by Dutch NSF & 3 PhD-projects
    • 14 persons; senior researchers : Andriessen & Erkens

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

utrecht interactive learning group
Marije van Amelsvoort

Jerry Andriessen

Carla van Boxtel

Wouter van Diggelen

Jannet van Drie

Gijsbert Erkens

Jos Jaspers

Gellof Kanselaar

Jos van der Linden

Lisette Munneke

Maarten Overdijk

Maaike Prangsma

Chiel van der Puil

Arja Veerman (TNO)

Utrecht Interactive Learning Group

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

slide4
CSCL
  • Students give words to their thoughts
  • Students write down their thoughts
  • A history of the interaction (CS)
  • Monitoring by the teacher
  • Interaction paradigm
  • Collaboration and argumentation

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

central question
Central question
  • How do collaborating students manage to coordinate and adjust their actions to the processes of knowledge construction that occur between them?
    • Mutual coordination & control of interaction

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

first phase in our research
First phase in our research

Discussion Forums

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

discussion forums
Discussion Forums

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

students differ in amount of time
Students differ in amount of time

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

students differ in participation
Students differ in participation

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

second phase in our research
Second phase in our research

Different tools for argumentation

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

research questions
Research questions
  • How to provoke argumentation?
  • How to support cognitive processes of
    • evaluating information
    • multiple perspective taking
    • elaboration

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

learning environment in which we can
Learning environment in which we can...
  • Structure the interaction at the interface
    • labeling utterances
    • Resources : text or pictorial information
    • separate task and communication window
    • turn-taking control

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

electronic environments
Electronic environments

(1) Dialab (Moore, 1993)

(2) Conference MOO (Jermann & Schneider, 1997)

(3) CLARE(Wan & Johnson, 1994)

(4) Belvédère (Suthers & Weiner, 1995)

(5) CTP (Andriessen, Erkens, Overeem & Jaspers, 1996)

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

interface dialab
Interface Dialab

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

conference moo
Conference MOO

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

interface clare system
Interface Clare system

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

slide17

Example “Belvédère”

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

belverdere system
Belverdere system

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

collaborative text production ctp
Collaborative Text Production CTP

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

conclusions 1
Conclusions (1)
  • Preconditions for fruitful argumentation:
    • shared focus on goal
    • shared focus on dialogue
  • Provoking argumentation
    • task - instruction - roles students/ tutor

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

conclusions 2
Conclusions (2)
  • Support for argumentation
    • combination of sentence openers and free input of text
    • turn-taking in task window coordinates the collaborative problem-solving process
    • turn-taking in communication window inhibits the elaboration on arguments
    • use of diagrams: graphical organisation of arguments stimulates (multiple perspective taking x elaboration)

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

third phase in our research
Third phase in our research

Own environment TC3

For argumentative writing

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

how to continue
How to continue...
  • structured versus unstructured interaction
  • graphic/ textual dialogue markers and sentence openers
  • combinations of educational design & structured interaction

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

main processes in dynamics of collaborative interaction
Main processes in dynamics of collaborative interaction

The need to achieve a joint product in collaboration stimulates 3 processes :

  • Activation of knowledge and skills
  • Grounding (creating a common frame of reference)
  • Negotiation or coming to agreement

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

1 activation of knowledge and skills
1. Activation of knowledge and skills
  • Initiating
        • degree of participation
        • proposing topics / task strategy
  • Articulation
        • explicating & verbalizing
        • organizing & structuring
  • Exchanging knowledge and information
        • sharing information & resources
        • seeking & asking for information

stimulating task directness

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

2 grounding or creating a common frame of reference
2. Grounding or creating a common frame of reference
  • Tuning
        • adapting to the partner’s level of understanding
  • Checking
        • checking exchanged info with existing knowledge
  • Focusing
        • mutual control of focus and topic of discussion
  • Co-construction
        • complementing knowledge from the partner

maintenance of a ‘collective space’

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

3 negotiation and coming to agreement
3. Negotiation and coming to agreement
  • Elaboration
        • explaining and accounts
  • Argumentation
        • discussion, persuasion & criticizing
        • comparing & evaluating
  • Coming to agreement
        • deciding & according

‘paradox of collaborative learning’

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

but we don t want to
“But We Don’t Want To…”
  • ...Be in disagreement
  • ...Argue with the tutor
  • ...Insult our friends
  • ...Loose an argument
  • …Spend so much energy!

Paradox:

But we have to collaborate !!??

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

cosar project
COSAR project
  • Computer Supported Collaborative Argumentative Writing
  • Planning argumentative texts
    • generating
    • organizing
    • linearization
  • Students aged 16-18; College Preparatory High school
  • Groupware: tools & communication

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

basic tc3 environment
Basic TC3 environment

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

planning tools added
Planning tools added

Outliner

Diagrammer

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

tc3 text composer collaborative computer supported
TC3 (Text Composer: Collaborative & Computer supported)

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

experiments with tc3
Experiments with TC3
  • Control group: 49 pairs of students (16-18 yr) with TC3 basic environment
  • 6 experimental groups: 120 pairs with TC3 environment and planning tools
  • compose argumentative texts on ‘organ donation’ & ‘cloning’
  • log files of actions, chats, diagrams, text

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

research questions1
Research questions
  • How does discussion (chat, diagram) about writing activities relate to the argumentative quality of the resulting argumentative text?
  • Are number and type of argumentation episodes related to the quality of the argumentative texts?

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

conclusion
Conclusion
  • Students writing high quality texts attend more to formulating content and discuss less non-task matters.
  • Discussion and sharing of knowledge result in a higher argumentative quality of the text.
  • Arguments about meta-cognitive matters and subject matter need to be resolved.
  • Coordination of activities and agreement on a common line of reasoning is needed for a successful collaboration.

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

mepa multiple episode protocol analysis erkens
MEPA (Multiple Episode Protocol Analysis) Erkens

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

slide37

Transition diagram for the Control group

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

slide38

Transition diagram for the Diagram condition

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

fourth phase
Fourth phase

Broadening the context

Project-based learning

Pro-ICT with VCRI =

Virtual collaborative research institute

EU-projects : DUNES & SCALE

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

project based learning
Project-based learning

Differences with previous environments:

  • Synchronous and a-synchronous
  • A-synchronous at team and class level
  • => 2 students at the same time
  • Working together on the same or different texts
  • Coach for monitoring by the teacher
  • More Web-based than CS

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

vcri cowriter
VCRI: Cowriter

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

vcri diagrammer
VCRI: Diagrammer

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

vcri selector
VCRI: Selector

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

vcri group forum
VCRI: Group Forum

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

vcri planner
VCRI: Planner

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

vcri reflector
VCRI: Reflector

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

vcri coach for teacher
VCRI: Coach for teacher

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

trends in our research
Trends in our research
  • From task to project
  • From a pair of students to a community
  • More teacher involvement in projects
  • More tools for coordination of collaboration and task
  • In EU-projects (Jerry Andriessen)
    • Scenario-based implementation of CSCL
    • Also argumentation in policy making
  • More ecological valid research

Educational Sciences Utrecht University

thank you
Thank you

We still think that the quality

of the interaction process

and dialogues is the

most important aspect

of learning situations

Educational Sciences Utrecht University