Coding Schemes for Collaborative Learning Dialogs

1. Coding Schemes for Collaborative Learning Dialogs Chih-yu Chao <cchao@cmu.edu> Dialogs on Dialogs Reading Group March 4th, 2005

2. Overview • The Paper • Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (in press). A methodology to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education. • My Research • Questions / Discussion Overview:: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

3. Part I. The Paper

4. Introduction • CSCL (Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning) • Written discourse of learners (text-based, asynchronous discussion boards) • Knowledge Construction • Participation • Epistemic • Argumentative • Social mode Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

5. Participation • Quality of participation • To what extent learners contribute to discourse • Heterogeneity of participation • Collaborative learning may enhance quality because all learners are supposed to contribute to small group discussions (in contrast with classroom discussion) Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

6. Epistemic • How learners work on the knowledge construction task they are confronted with • Whether learners are engaging in on-task discourse • The activities can be considered to detect misconceptions of learners Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

7. Argumentative • Learners continuously warrant, qualify, or argue against solutions to the problems until they converge towards a joint solution • Construction of • Single arguments • Sequences of arguments Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

8. Social Modes • To what extent learners refer to contributions of their learning partners • Externalization: make contributions without reference to other contributions • Elicitation: using learning partners as a resource by asking questions • Quick consensus building: accept others’ contributions not because they are convinced, but in order to be able to continue discourse Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

9. Social Modes (cont.) • Integration-oriented consensus building: show a willingness to actively revise or change their own views in response to persuasive arguments • Conflict-oriented consensus building: pinpoint out specific aspects of the peers’ contributions and modify them or present alternatives Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

10. Coding Hierarchy • Participation • Quality of participation • Heterogeneity of participation • Epistemic • Engagement in on-task discourse • Detection of misconceptions • Argumentative • Construction of single arguments • Construction of sequences of arguments • Social mode • Externalization • Elicitation • Quick consensus building • Integration-oriented consensus building • Conflict-oriented consensus building

11. Discourse Segmentation • Fine grained • How learners apply single concepts to problem space (epistemic) • Coarser grained • Construction of arguments (argumentative) • How learners refer to their learning partners’ contributions (social modes) Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

12. Part II. My Research

13. Introduction • Calculus problem-solving • Treatment group (human-human, groups of 2): • pretest, tutorial, midtest • collaborative problem-solving (using IM) • posttest • Control group: • pretest, tutorial, midtest • think-aloud individual problem-solving • posttest Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

14. Data Collection • Pretest, midtest, posttest results • Peer learning dialogs during the problem-solving session How much information can I get from the dialogs? Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

15. Hypotheses • The peer learner provides the knowledge that the subject does not have. (The subjects learns by receiving instructions.) • In contrast, the peer learner shows his/her insufficiency of knowledge, and the subject reinforces the knowledge s/he has by teaching the peer learner. • The peer learner provides encouragement when the subject feels frustrated. Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

16. Hyp1: Learning by Receiving • The subject may show his/her lack of knowledge by • Asking questions (elicitation) • Making mistakes detected by the peer learner • If the subject shows a quick consensus building (i.e. the peer learner only dictates the subject to fill out the answer without any explanation) – it does not count • The peer learner has to elaborate or explain the segment of the target knowledge, and the subject has to acknowledge such input (integration-oriented consensus building) • The subject may disagree with the peer learner (conflict-oriented consensus building, argumentative) Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

17. Examples of Hyp1 • A: which side is u’ and which side is v’? • B: du/dx is u’, the right side, 1 ------------------------------------------------ • A: we have u = (t+1), right? • B: right • A: when you take derivative, the 1 is out; it’s 0 • B: oh so you did it in your head then… I see ------------------------------------------------ • A: wait, not x^(1/2) • B: … I think its right. My tutor told me that square root was 1/2 power • A: it’s x Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

18. Hyp2: Learning by Teaching • Similar to Hyp1, only switching roles (The difficult part is in determining and measuring the reinforcement of knowledge.) Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

19. Hyp3: Learning with Support/Motivation • Words of • Annoyance • Disappointment • Frustration (the use of obscene words may be a good indication) • Words of • Support • Encouragement Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

20. Examples of Hyp3 • A: I think this is getting lame… there are so many boxes to fill in --------------------------------------------------------- • A: I’m really not very good at basic algebra so I missed these things easily --------------------------------------------------------- • A: probably my fault… --------------------------------------------------------- • A: so… this is tricky… I don’t like calculus :( • B: yea it can be --------------------------------------------------------- • A: this one looks complicated though • B: we can rock its socks off --------------------------------------------------------- • A: I hate math • B: you’re doing fine so far Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

21. My Coding Hierarchy • Participation • Quality of participation • Heterogeneity of participation • Epistemic • Engagement in on-task discourse (?) • Detection of misconceptions • Argumentative • Construction of single arguments • Construction of sequences of arguments (?) • Social mode • Externalization (?) • Elicitation • Quick consensus building • Integration-oriented consensus building • Conflict-oriented consensus building • Showing frustration • Offering support Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

22. Part III. Questions / Discussion

23. My Questions • How should I define and quantify elaboration or explanation? • How do I determine how quickly (or how late) the subject detects a mistake made by the peer learner? • The peer learners rarely offer encouragement when the subjects feel frustrated – they usually just wanted to move on to the next question… • Other relevant research papers? • Suggestions on the coding schemes? Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

24. Your Questions? • Or comments? Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions