View
232
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Coding Schemes for Collaborative Learning
Dialogs
Chih-yu Chao<[email protected]>
Dialogs on Dialogs Reading GroupMarch 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
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
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
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