1 / 49

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. Utrecht Interactive Learning Group (ILG).

jimmyv
Download Presentation

C(omputer) S(upported) C(ollaborative) L(earning)

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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. First phase in our research Discussion Forums Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  7. Discussion Forums Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  8. Students differ in amount of time Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  9. Students differ in participation Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  10. Second phase in our research Different tools for argumentation Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  11. Research questions • How to provoke argumentation? • How to support cognitive processes of • evaluating information • multiple perspective taking • elaboration Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. Interface Dialab Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  15. Conference MOO Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  16. Interface Clare system Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  17. Example “Belvédère” Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  18. Belverdere system Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  19. Collaborative Text Production CTP Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. Third phase in our research Own environment TC3 For argumentative writing Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  23. How to continue... • structured versus unstructured interaction • graphic/ textual dialogue markers and sentence openers • combinations of educational design & structured interaction Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. 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

  28. “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

  29. 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

  30. Basic TC3 environment Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  31. Planning tools added Outliner Diagrammer Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  32. TC3 (Text Composer: Collaborative & Computer supported) Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  33. 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

  34. 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

  35. 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

  36. MEPA (Multiple Episode Protocol Analysis) Erkens Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  37. Transition diagram for the Control group Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  38. Transition diagram for the Diagram condition Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  39. Fourth phase Broadening the context Project-based learning Pro-ICT with VCRI = Virtual collaborative research institute EU-projects : DUNES & SCALE Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  40. 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

  41. VCRI: Cowriter Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  42. VCRI: Diagrammer Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  43. VCRI: Selector Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  44. VCRI: Group Forum Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  45. VCRI: Planner Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  46. VCRI: Reflector Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  47. VCRI: Coach for teacher Educational Sciences Utrecht University

  48. 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

  49. 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

More Related