1 / 20

Visualisation of agreement and discussion processes during online collaborative learning

Visualisation of agreement and discussion processes during online collaborative learning. Jeroen Janssen, Gijsbert Erkens, Marcel Broeken, Jos Jaspers & Gellof Kanselaar Research Centre Learning in Interaction Utrecht University, The Netherlands.

fala
Download Presentation

Visualisation of agreement and discussion processes during online collaborative learning

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Visualisation of agreement and discussion processes during online collaborative learning Jeroen Janssen, Gijsbert Erkens, Marcel Broeken, Jos Jaspers & Gellof Kanselaar Research Centre Learning in Interaction Utrecht University, The Netherlands EARLI Special Interest Meeting, June 21-23, 2006 projectnumber 411-02-121

  2. Computer-supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) • Electronic learning environment that facilitates collaborative learning. • Supports exchange and sharing of information. • Computer-mediated communication (CMC). • Positive expectations (combination of collaborative learning and ICT). • But also problems during CSCL (e.g., Thompson & Coovert, 2003; Hobman, Bordia, Irmer, & Chang, 2002; Lipponen et al., 2003). • Conflicts • Free riding behavior • Dominance, etc.

  3. Problem 1: Communication problems • Communication is sometimes difficult during CSCL (Fjermestad, 2004). • Possibly too little “media richness” because facial expressions and intonation of voice are lacking (Daft & Lengel, 1986). • Group tasks may not suit communication mode of CSCL (Mennecke, Valachich, & Wheeler, 2000).

  4. Problem 2: Quality of discussions • Critical yet constructive discussions (exploratory discussions) are important, but occur seldomly. • Students give few arguments and explanations (Kuhn & Udell, 2003; Van der Meijden & Veenman, 2005). • Students may not possess the necessary skills. • Interpretation of discussions may be more difficult during CSCL (is there agreement or discussion?). • Role of group norms (Postmes, Spears, & Cihangir, 2001).

  5. CSCL-environment: VCRI • Virtual Collaborative Research Institute = VCRI. • Groupware, tools are shared by group members. • Research tasks, inquiry tasks. • Communication is synchronously (chat) and asynchronously (forum). • Several different tools (sources, shared text processor). • Separate tool for teachers.

  6. CSCL-environment: VCRI Teacher Students

  7. Possible solution: Shared Space (1) • Shared Space visualizes agreement and discussion during online collaboration. • Shared Space discerns episodes during online collaboration. • Message is analyzed using a filter based on 1300 rules • Filter uses “discourse markers”. • Categorizes messages into 29 dialogue acts. • Confirmations, acceptations and positive evaluations signal agreement. • Denials, verification questions, negative evaluations and counterarguments signal discussion.

  8. Possible solution: Shared Space (2) Chat-fragment of group of two girls and a boy.

  9. Possible solution: Shared Space (3) Possible advantages Shared Space: • Providing feedback. • Raising awareness. • Making communication easier: Understanding whether there is discussion or agreement. • Group discussion about the manner in which discussions are conducted: critical or consensual? • Stimulating more critical, exploratory group norms.

  10. Research design • Posttest-only design with experimental (n=59) and control group (n=58). • Pre-university, secondary education students (+/- 16 years). • Group size: 2-4. • Course: History. • Group task: Inquiry task about the first four centuries of Christianity. 3 different parts. • Duration: 8 lessons in 4 weeks. • Data collected using questionnaires and protocolanalyses.

  11. Results: Media richness • Question: Do students with access to the Shared Space perceive higher media richness? I.e.: Is communication made easier? • Instrument: 15 items on a 5-point scale. • Example item: “I could easily explain things during the chat”. • Results: Students with access to the Shared Space perceive marginally higher media richness (p = .06).

  12. Results: Group norms • Question: Do students with access to Shared Space hold other, more critical group norms? • Instrument: 3 scales in questionnaire: • Critical group norm (3 items, “Our group was a critical one”). • Consensual group norm (3 items, “In this group people generally adapt to each other”). • Exploratory group norm (7 items based on the work of Mercer et al. (1999), “During collaboration critism and counter arguments were accepted”) • Students with Shared Space report a more exploratory group norm perception. • No differences regarding critical and consensual group norm perception.

  13. Results: Perception of collaboration • Question: Do students with Shared Space hold more positive perceptions of their collaboration? • Instrument: 3 scales in questionnaire: • Positive group behavior (7 items, “We helped each other”). • Negative group behavior (5 items, “We had conflicts”). • Effectiveness of group task strategies (8 items based on the work of Saavedra et al. (1993), “We planned our group work effectively”) • Students with Shared Space report more positive group behavior and higher perceptions of effectiveness of group task strategies. • No differences for negative group behavior.

  14. Results: Collaboration process • Question: Do students with Shared Space collaborate differently? • Instrument: Coding scheme for online discussions. • 4 main categories: • Task-related activities. • Regulation of task-related activities. • Social activities. • Regulation of social activities.

  15. Results: Collaboration process • Collaboration: • Mostly regulation of task-related activities (planning: 22%, monitoring: 13%). • Lot of time devoted to reaching and maintaining shared understanding (20%). • Many positive social remarks (10%). • Some differences in collaboration processes. • Shared Space: Asking less task-related questions. • Shared Space: Less negative remarks about the electronic learning environment. • Shared Space: Less effort devoted to reaching and maintaining shared understanding.

  16. Results: Quality of group products • Question: Do groups of students with Shared Space produce group products of higher quality? • Instrument: Assessment form which assesses, for each of the three parts of the task: • Content and argumentation • Presentation (language, text construction, etc.) • Groups with Shared Space obtain higher scores for presentation for part 1 of the group task. • Groups with Shared Space obtain marginally higher scores (p < .07) for content and argumentationfor part 1 of the group task. • No differences for part 2 and 3 of the group task.

  17. Conclusions Shared Space: • Makes online communication easier (higher media richness, less effort is needed to reach and maintain shared understanding). • Stimulates critical, exploratory group norm. • Contributes to positive perceptions of the collaboration process. • Has some influence on students’ collaboration processes. However, students do not discuss group processes more. • Has an impact on the quality of part 1 of the group task.

  18. Discussion (1) • Unclear why Shared Space had influence on group norm perception and perception of collaboration, but influence on actual collaboration process is limited. • Only a small effect of the Shared Space on quality of the group products. Possibly because of the small effect of Shared Space on collaboration process. • Are results replicable with other group tasks? • Influence of individual and group factors is unknown (e.g., familiarity of group members, gender).

  19. Discussion (2)

  20. Questions? E-mail: j.j.h.m.janssen@fss.uu.nl URL: http://edugate.fss.uu.nl/~crocicl/

More Related