I CALT 200 1 : August 6 -8 Panel Discussion

1. PANEL CHAIR Dr Elspeth McKay RMIT University elspeth@rmit.edu.au ICALT 2001 : August 6-8 Panel Discussion Collaborative Context–Mediated Experiential Learning Through Asynchronous Learning Networks

2. Ass. Prof Piet Kommers University of Twente Dr David Wiley Utah State University Prof. Toshio Okamoto University of Electro-Communications PANEL CHAIR Dr Elspeth McKay RMIT University elspeth@rmit.edu.au Panelists Prof. Brian Garner Deakin University Collaborative Context–Mediated Experiential Learning Through Asynchronous Learning Networks

3. 10 10 10 Panel-1 : Discussion Forum Question / Discussion time 40 mins

4. Panel Discussion Forum Human-Computer Interactive Learning Synchronous Asynchronous

5. Representation Mode ALN Knowledge Management Learner characteristics Mechanics Shared Learning Experiences Notational Transfer Internal External Exchange Peer-to-Peer Learning Objects Panel Discussion Forum Collaborative Learning

6. Representation Mode Versatile Representations Asynchronous Learning Transactions via the Web Collaborative Learning

7. Instructional Format Do courseware designers have enough expertise to identify educational granularity when using notational scaffolding?

8. Instructional Conditions Forum: Guided communication tool Interaction of Spatial RepresentationsWhich type of learning strategy

9. Effective Notational Scaffolding

10. Chicken and Egg SyndromeSpatial ability : natural / learned

11. Design for Embedded Cognitive Processing s

12. Awareness of Personal Cognition

13. Panel-1 : Next Speaker Brian Garner Professor of Computing School of Computing and Mathematics Deakin University, Geelong, Australia Collaborative Learning

14. ALN Knowledge ManagementProfessor Brian Garner Experiential Learning Support Learner characteristics Collaborative Learning

15. ALN Knowledge ManagementExperiential Learning Support • Human Motivation for Collaborative Learning • Research Pedagogy • Tacit and Explicit Knowledge • Knowledge Domains • Research Significance

16. Experiential Learning SupportHuman Motivation for Collaborative Learning Davenport & Prusak (1998) define knowledge as … A fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the mind of knowers. In organisations it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organisational routines, processes practices and norms.

17. Experiential Learning Support

18. Experiential Learning SupportKnowledge Domain for Inferring Software Quality Propositions for EC Projects

19. Experiential Learning SupportResearch Pedagogy • ….Learner Activation of and Access to Stored Knowledge • ….Knowledge as Contextual Forms and Reference Models • ….Validation of Spreading Activation Theories in Experiential Learning • ….Context Mining Algorithms

20. Experiential Learning SupportResearch Significance • ….Development of Novel Evaluation Instruments for Measuring Cognitive Performance Dynamics • ….Discovery of New Instructional Strategies that Activate Context-Mediated Reasoning Processes

21. Panel-1 : Next Speaker Professor Toshio Okamoto Director, Research Station of Advanced e-Learning Graduate School of Information Systems University of Electro-Communications, Tokyo, Japan Collaborative Learning

22. ALN Knowledge Management Experiential Learning Support Meanings/Benefits to standardization Collaborative Learning

23. Current Situation • There is an increasing requirement for an infrastructure to enable user interactions and collaborations based around mutual goals and shared data. • Geographically distributed organizations/persons require this support for their internal/external learning/activity. • Shared objects and communication, space in which users are aware of one another while learning in shared objects(user- and task awareness, and units of resource management). • Shared resource management, support for user interaction

24. Definitions “collaborative learning is defined as a learning process that emphasizes group or cooperative efforts among faculty and learners.” Interpersonal collaboration in the learning process and provide an interface to a shared environment. there are desired leaning goals and results (achievement) for each of learners.

25. Needs for CL in Japanese University • Deepening knowledge, concepts & skills after lecturing • Managing research projects • Motivation • Sharing and re-using Knowledge and Resources • Assessment by Portfolio of collaborative activities • Challenge a new teaching method for Project based Learning and so on • Reflection by sharing/exchanging ideas, opinions • Learning efficiency

26. Functions/Tools for CL • Chat, and Web(CGI) • WEB/client-server • Cross platform password managment • Blackboard(whiteboard)/Note…..BBS • Collaborative simulation and tools (concept mapping, work-flow diagram, CAD, CASE) • TV-Conference • 3D-data viewer(data sharing) • Portfolio and Data sharing • Managing/Coordinating CL process with dialogue, documents and data

27. Learner B (6) Read article posted by learner B (5) I think it ’ s enough to certify Learner C congruence between △ ABC and △ CDA （７）△ ABC is not Learner D congruent with △ CDA Learner A Collaborative Learning （８） Any questions? (as agent workplace you have no prompting) Resources (4) Draw an additional ( APIS /Tools) line CD onto the collaborative agent workplace （ 10 ） All learners completed Communication Assignment. Next please. tool (3) question to new logged-on user （１） Assignment: circular angle （２） Certify （９） Discussion and triangle ∠ ABC ＝∠ DEC Instructor/Facilitator monitoring similarity * Agent: a support program for a real learner What is “Collaborative learning” Figure below (included in N0034) is an example of the typical collaborative learning system. Learners are solving an assignment given by a coach. Through discussions in the collaborative workplace, learners gain “problem solving “ skills in a more effective way than in a personal learning environment (such as the conventional WBT).

28. MENU [Q] [O] [D] [A] [Q] [O] [A] [P] [A] [O] [O] [A] Select Question Opin Agree Disagree Propose Others Case Study “Object Model” editor with Chat tool Model Editor

29. Case Study – 3

30. The Unified Model of the Collaborative Learning Environment Dialogue Layer Digital Collaborative Workplace (CWP) Performance Layer Personal Workplace1 (PWP) Plug in ….. ….. APIs/ Tools Personal Workplacen (PWP) Information Reference Layer Various Materials for Learning

31. The unified environment for collaborative learning Tools APIs Chat Unify collaborative environment logically Shared Workplace Record of input data and data editing for reusing Collaborative Memory Repository Reference and Documentation for collaborative learning

32. Learning objectives (Basic knowledge/skill - Meta) Instructor/facilitator commitment Role(fixed - turn taking) Members’ profile and group size Collaboration mode( open ended - goal oriented) Structured degree(ex. group norm, communication pattern etc.) Utilized/prepared facilities/materials ………. Some examples of GOM

33. Panel-1 : Next Speaker Ass.Professor Piet Kommers Faculty of Educational Science and Technology University of Twente, The Netherlands Collaborative Learning

34. Shared Learning Experiences Notational Transfer Internal External Exchange Shared Learning Experiences Through Web Correspondence Collaborative Learning

35. Shared Learning Experiences Learning Effectiveness of Concept Mapping in a Computer-Supported Collaborative Problem Solving Design Neli Stoyanova Piet Kommers

36. Hypotheses Concept mapping is an effective tool for mediating computer supported collaboration Shared cognition is substantial for cognitive construction /reconstruction

37. Shared Learning Experiences Three scenarios for concept mapping mediated group interaction • Distributed • Moderated • Shared

38. Shared Learning Experiences Distributed cognition: is defined as an extension of the internal cognition of the personality in the outside world Shared cognition: is building upon the individual inputs in the collaborative process

39. Shared Learning Experiences • Distributed • Members work autonomously, make concept maps that reflect their knowledge, and pass them to their group members. This process is continued until all members reach a common vision of the problem. The thinking process is individual.

40. Shared Learning Experiences • Moderated • The interaction is moderated by one central person, who adjusts individual notations until a common group vision is reached. The group members have no direct access to the individual representations of the other members. They negotiate via the moderator.

41. Shared Learning Experiences • Shared • Members interact synchronously and try to solve the problem as a group. They share their knowledge in action. Knowledge contributions are perceived as collective knowledge.

42. Shared Learning Experiences • Distributed mapping mode .. 2 groups • Moderated mapping mode .. 1 group • Shared mapping mode .. 2 groups • Control, non-mapping mode .. 1 group • The control group was instructed to use the brainstorming method for their collaboration

43. Shared Learning Experiences Pre-test: Before the experimental session a pre-test was conducted as an individual task. Students were asked to make a paper and pencil concept map representing their personal knowledge, vision and understanding of the task. Collaborative experimental session: Students were assigned to the groups and receive written instructions how to proceed their group work. Post-test: In order to capture the individual learning outputs after the group work the same task as in the pre-test was proposed to the students a week after the experimental session.

44. Concept map drawn by a Shared group

45. Concept map drawn by a Moderated group

46. Shared Learning Experiences Independent Variables Testing the first hypothesis: the use of concept mapping technique in collaboration process with two levels – mapping and control groups Testing the second hypothesis: the mode of group interaction with three levels Distributed Moderated Shared

47. Shared Learning Experiences Learning effectiveness at the level of individual student, scored numerically on post-test concept mapping production Learning effectiveness at the level of the group as a whole, scored numerically on group concept mapping production Learning effectiveness as an interaction between individual students and group achievements, scored numerically on both individual and group outputs

48. Individual Fluency and Flexibility

49. Enrichment, Knowledge Acquisition and Retention at Group Level

50. Shared Learning Experiences Mapping students include much more new concepts in their post-test than students of the control groups (Mmap = 15.71; Mcontr. = 4.00; F = 4.457, Sig. = .048). On the criteria of individual creativity and reconfiguration no significant difference was found. Our assumption that the use of concept mapping will provoke in general a high opportunity for individual patterns breaking is not confirmed.