Diagram-mediated Collaborative Learning

1. Diagram-mediated Collaborative Learning Carla Van Boxtel Utrecht University Department of Educational Sciences Arja Veerman TNO-human Factors Training and Instruction

2. How can diagrams facilitate elaboration and argumentation in both face-to-face and electronic collaborative learning? tools constrain Collaborative concept learning tools tools provoke enable support tools Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht

3. Study 1 Concept Map constrain Collaborative elaboration provoke enable support Face-to-face Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht

4. Study 2 Argumentative Diagram constrain Collaborative argumentation enable provoke support CMC Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht

5. Concept Map Less resistance, less current strength Diagram in which • Nodes represent concepts • Lines represent interrelationships among concepts • Labels on the lines represent the nature of the relations current resistance Longer wire, more resistance length Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht

6. Experimental Study • Learning goal: improving understanding of electricity concepts • Task: introductory task of max. 45 minutes • Subjects: 40 students (15/16 year old) working in dyads • Learning outcomes: pre-test and post-test • Verbal interaction: video-taped and transcribed Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht

7. Concept map: Construction of a concept map on a large paper with given electricity concepts 10 dyads Poster: Explaining the working of an electric torch on a large paper with given electricity concepts 10 dyads Design Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht

8. Analysis of Student Interaction • Amount and type of talk about electricity concepts Propositions: utterances about the meaning or relations of concepts • Amount and type of elaboration Elaborative episodes: elaborated answers on questions, elaboration of conflict, reasoning • Amount and type of co-construction Co-construction episodes: collaborative elaboration of conflicts, collaborative reasoning Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht

9. Results • Significant higher scores on the post-test • Almost no off-task and procedural talk • Type of product has no effect on learning outcomes • Type of product has an effect on the quality of the collaborative learning processes: In the concept mapping condition: -More talk about electricity concepts -More collaborative elaboration of conflicts -More reasoning Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht

10. Concept map provokes and supports collaborative elaboration • Focuses on the concepts to be learned: their meaning and relationships • Facilitates verbalization of own ideas • Facilitates the maintaining of a shared focus • Stimulates argumentation, because the concept map requires an explicit answer Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht

11. Argumentative Diagram Diagram in which • Nodes represent claims and statements • Lines represent relations between claims and arguments • Colors on the lines represent positive, negative or neutral relations Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht

12. Explorative Study • Learning goal: Development of a CBT program • Task: Discussion task to justify pedagogical choices (45-60 min. per issue), by use of the Belvedere system • Subjects: 8 small student groups (university level) • Learning outcomes: process measurement of the production of constructive activities • Verbal interaction: logged discussions & diagrams Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht

13. Argumentative diagram Construction of an argumentative diagram by use of the belvedere system, including a synchronous chat system and a graphical diagram construction window. Self-defined claims were used to trigger discussion 8 small groups (dyads/triples) Design Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht

14. Analysis of Student Interaction • Chat: amount and type of talk (per message) Focus: technical/off-task, planning, thematic  thematic: dialogue moves, (incl. arguments), constructive activities • Diagram: themes, statements, links, chat overlap Elaborative episodes: elaborated answers on questions, elaboration of conflict, reasoning Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht

15. Results • Chat: majority of messages concerned technical/off-task talk and planning issues • Diagrams: strongly focused on thematic issues • Chats & diagrams: diagram types tends to be related to types of chats • Chats & diagrams: the more overlap between chat and diagram, the more constructive activities Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht

16. Argumentative Diagram Supports Focusing and Argumentation • Focuses on the concepts to be learned: their meaning and relationships • Facilitates maintenance of a shared focus • Facilitates verbalization of arguments pro and contra claims/statements Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht

17. Conclusions & Discussion • Diagrams provoke and support meaningful discussions and collaborative learning by facilitating focus maintenance, elaboration and argumentation • F2F facilitates focusing (use of non-verbal cues and correction in speed of talk) • CMC facilitates critical behavior (no non-verbal cues to inhibit argumentation and time to think through slow flow of communication) Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht

18. Recommendations for Design • Use tasks that aim at elaborate talk and argumentation • Use visually shared products • CMC: use support for co-ordination and focusing • F2F: use support for critical question asking and argumentation Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht