Upload
steven-ryan
View
220
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SYNCHRONOUS COMPUTER-MEDIATED
COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES AMONG
COLLOCATED STUDENTS:
Conditions that make them valuable in every-day
educational practice
SYNCHRONOUS COMPUTER-MEDIATED
COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES AMONG
COLLOCATED STUDENTS:
Conditions that make them valuable in every-day
educational practice
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Argiro Petrou, George Fessakis, Angelique Dimitrakopoulou
Learning Technology and Educational Engineering Laboratory, Department of Education,
University of the Aegean, Greece.
State of the art
Synchronous Computer-Mediated Collaborative Activities
Participants: physically separated
Participants: co-locatedFocus: exploit learning opportunities that are
offered by Computer-mediated
Collaborative Activities in realistic school
context
•Focus: learning outcomes, students’ motivation
for effective collaborative
learning, teachers’ exploitation of new
opportunities (logging traces of interactions as
far as actions and messages is concern).
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Purpose of the Research
What are students’ and teachers’ point of view on the learning value of co-located collaborative activities?
Are students motivated to work through this setting?
Is synchronous computer mediated collaborative activities among co-located students, a
valuable and worthwhile activity?
What is the quality of synchronous collaborative activity?
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Experimental Conditions (1/4)
ParticipantsFour teachers and sixteen students from three public schools (eight students from K9 grade and eight students from K12 grade).
Classroom conditionsA group of two students and one teacher collaborating using three pcs (OME mode of use).A group of two students without the presence of any adult collaborating using two pcs (OXE mode of use).
Technology based Learning Environment ModellingSpace Tools supporting students e.g. annotated PlaybackTools supporting teachers e.g. Quantitative Overview, CAF, Process Reproduction Tool.
TaskActivities with central theme the basic linear system: y=ax+b, framed with the authentic problem of mobile phone usage’s cost, according to the following script:
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
COLLOCATED STUDENTS SYNCHRONOUS COLLABORATION SCRIPT
Phase 1 INITIAL INDIVIDUAL PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING.Students solve individually specific instances of the problem using paper and pencil [via students printed activity’sheets]. Individual, with paper & pencil
Phase 2 SYNCHRONOUS COMPUTER MEDIATED COLLABORATION collocated synchronous computer supported collaborative activity [students that are collocated in the same classroom, working on different PCstations, not near each other] with possible supervision, by teacher (computer mediated or not)
Phase 3 GLOBAL GROUP REPORTStudents have to edit a report in order to present the process and the results of their collaborative activity processDuring this phase, students must be supported, by using interactions analysis tools, that provides a readable ‘history’ of their collaborative activity process. side-by side synchronous collaboration in front of the same PC without supervision by teacher
Phase 4 REPORT PRESENTATION IN THE CLASSROOM.During the next lesson, some group of students present their activity report in the classroom and answer other students’ and teacher questions. collective activity in the social level of the class, moderated by the teacher.Teacher Role: Additionally, teacher intervenes to the whole class, or to specific groups after having study the ‘history of collaborative process’ of each group (using and studying information provided by interaction analysis tools).
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Experimental Conditions (4/4)
Available timeEach class had 8 sessions of 2x45 minutes (maximum) available for the full set of learning activities implementation. The whole approach lasted about four months.
Data collectionLog files, final computer based collaborative products (models & texts), paper based-activity sheets of students, video & audio recordings of collaborations, students’ & teachers’ questionnaires, panel videos.
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Analysis Approach
Quality of synchronous collaborative activity
Project Management
Social Negotiations
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Analysis of the quality of synchronous collaborative activity (1/12)
The dialogue structure as theorized for the general script implementation (in case of modelling)
Symbol Meaning
Message. (Messages can be further color coded to depict information like the way a social negotiation begins, ends etc)
‘Project’ management (Planning, scheduling, assignment, auditing)
Social negotiation during model development/ exploitation
Management of Interaction
Technical Problems & User Interface Issues
Social conversation (irrelevant to the project) & Unclassified
t
PHASE1MODEL DEVELOPMENT
PHASE2PROBLEM SOLVING
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
The hierarchical dialog analysis system (1/4)
Analysis of the quality of synchronous collaborative activity (2/12)
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PLANNING. e.g. [We must construct a model just like the previous activity.]
SCHEDULING. e.g. [First we must construct the model for the second company. Afterwards we are going to produce the diagram]
ASSIGNMENT. e.g. [Set the values for the axes.]
AUDITING. e.g. [Check if you have done all the steps you should.]
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
The hierarchical dialog analysis system (2/4)
Analysis of the quality of synchronous collaborative activity (3/12)
SOCIAL NEGOTIATION DURING MODEL DEVELOPMENT
SN-START- REQUEST BY QUESTION. e.g. [What max and min value I should set? They are not given. Should I use random values?]
SN-START-STATEMENT/DECLARATION. e.g. [13 Euro for the standard monthly cost and 0.03Euro for the cost per second].
SN-START-REQUEST BY DISAGREEMENT. e.g. [You didn’t set the right quantities to the axes.]
SN-TERM-COMPROMISE e.g. [O.K. Do it your way.]
SN-TERM-AGREEMENT. e.g. [Very good, Kiriakos. Let’s proceed with the second company. Define again the entities.]
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
The hierarchical dialog analysis system (3/4)
Analysis of the quality of synchronous collaborative activity (4/12)
SOCIAL NEGOTIATION DURING MODEL EXPLOITATION
SN-START-STATEMENT-PROPOSITION. e.g. [It is preferable……]
SN-START-REQUEST FOR VERIFICATION/CLARIFICATION. e.g. [The second company is preferable, what do you think? OR What value do you
mean?] ]
SN-TERM-COMPROMISE. e.g. [Well… lets proceed.]
SN-TERM-AGREEMENT. e.g. [Nice!]
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
The hierarchical dialog analysis system (3/4)
Analysis of the quality of synchronous collaborative activity (4/12)
MANAGEMENT OF INTERACTION. e.g. [Can you give me the key?].
SOCIAL CONVERSATION (IRRELEVANT TO THE PROJECT). e.g. [Have you read history?]
TECHNICAL PROBLEMS & DIFFICULTIES. e.g. [ The model is
not running. The program stacked!] UNCLASSIFIED. e.g. [……..]
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Distribution of Project Management’s messages to
subcategories
Distribution of Project Management’s messages to subcategories per agent
Two students and one teacher collaboratingthrough their own pcs (OME)
Analysis of the quality of synchronous collaborative activity (5/12)
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Distribution of Project Management’s messages to
subcategories
Distribution of Project Management’s messages to subcategories per agent
Two students collaboratingthrough their own pcs
without teacher participation (OXE)
Analysis of the quality of synchronous collaborative activity (6/12)
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Discussion about Project Management (1/2)
As far as supervised groups is concerns:
Analysis of the quality of synchronous collaborative activity (7/12)
In cases where teachers intervened more distinctively, mostly guiding and scaffolding students, doing more auditing, less planning and even less assignment, students were doing planning and assignments themselves.
In cases where teachers adopted the role of the “leader” doing mostly assignments, students’ collaboration was in existed.
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Discussion about Project Management (2/2)
As far as unsupervised groups is concerns, students, in most cases, were actively engaged doing mostly planning and assignments, and hardly any auditing.
Analysis of the quality of synchronous collaborative activity (8/12)
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Factorial analysis of the beginning and ending modes of Social Negotiations (SN) episodes and agents-teachers&students, that trigger the SN, during model development and model exploitation.
Symmetric Categories Plot (axes F1 and F2: 40,91 %)
USER - ST
USER - T
SN-START-QUESTION
SN-START-DISAGREEMENT
SN - START-STATEMENT
SN -START- HYP_STATEMENT
SN _ START_REQ_HYP_VER
SN_ START_REQ_HYP_CLAR
SN-TERM- COMPROMISE
SN -TERM - AGREEMENT
SN_TERM(EXPL) - COMPROMISE
SN_TERM(EXPL)_AGREEMENT
-2
-1,5
-1
-0,5
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
-1,6 -1,1 -0,6 -0,1 0,4 0,9 1,4 1,9
-- axis F1 (23,36 %) -->
-- a
xis
F2 (
17,5
5 %
) --
>
Two students and one teacher collaborating through their own pcs (OME) (1/2)
Analysis of the quality of synchronous collaborative activity (9/12)
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Factorial analysis of the beginning and ending modes of Social Negotiations (SN) episodes that were triggered by students during model development and model
exploitation and teacher’s participation to these episodes.
Symmetric Categories Plot (axes F1 and F2: 38,06 %)
SN-START-QUESTION
SN-START-DISAGREEMENT
SN-START-STATEMENT
SN-START-HYP-STATEMENT
SN-START-REQ-HYP-VER
SN-START-REQ-HYP-CLARIF
SN_TERM - COMPROMISE
SN-TERM- AGREEMENT
SN_TERM(EXPL) - COMPROMISE
SN-TERM(EXPL)-AGREEMENT
TEACHER_PART - 0
TEACHER_PART - 1
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
-1 0 1 2 3
-- axis F1 (22,24 %) -->
-- a
xis
F2
(15,
82 %
) --
>
Two students and one teacher collaborating through their own pcs (OME) (2/2)
Analysis of the quality of synchronous collaborative activity (10/12)
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Factorial analysis of the beginning and ending modes of Social Negotiations (SN) episodes and agents-students that trigger the SNs, during model development and
model exploitation
Symmetric Categories Plot (axes F1 and F2: 29,04 %)
AGENT - S-ATHINA
AGENT - S-GIENER
AGENT - S-IGOR
AGENT - S-KONNA
AGENT - S-MARY
AGENT - S-MICHSN-START - QUESTION
SN-START - DISAGREEMENT
SN-START - STATEMENT
SN-START -HYP-STATEMENT
SN-START -REQ-HYP-VER
SN-TERM -COMPROMISE
SN-TERM - AGREEMENT
SN-TERM - NEGOTIATOR
SN-TERM(EXPL) - COMPROMISE
SN-TERM(EXPL) -AGREEMENT1
SN-TERM(EXPL) - NEGOTIATOR
-2,5
-2
-1,5
-1
-0,5
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
-2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
-- axis F1 (16,33 %) -->
-- a
xis
F2 (
12,7
0 %
) --
>
Two students collaboratingthrough their own pcs without teacher participation (OXE)
Analysis of the quality of synchronous collaborative activity (11/12)
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Discussion about Social Negotiations’ Episodes
In cases teachers adopted the role of the “leader”, students’ involvement to SN episodes was suppressed.
Analysis of the quality of synchronous collaborative activity (12/12)
Teachers triggered most of SN episodes with a statement-declaration.
Teachers’ participation seem to be connected with compromising as termination mode of SN episodes, since usually students adopted their sayings.
Students in both modes were actively engaged in SN episodes, while unlike teachers they triggered most of SN episodes with question or request for explanation/verification.
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Analysis of students’ active participation 1/3
Collaborative action diagrams for OME modeof use
Activity 3, 19/01/2004 Magnadramon, Roudoula, Teacher
(Collaboration Activity Function, ICALTS 2004)CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Analysis of students’ active participation 2/3
Collaborative action diagrams for OXE modeof use
Activity 2, 12/12/2003 Athina, Giener
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Analysis of students’ active participation 3/3
Discussion of students’ motivation from their active participation
Most of the students were actively participating to the learning activity using MS through out the duration of the activity in both modes of use (with or without teacher).
Usually students first collaborated in order to develop the model and after the model development they were mainly chatting reflecting on the model in order to answer the questions in the activity sheet.
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Analysis of percentage of off-task messages
The percentage of off-task dialogue messages was usually
(5-10)%, which is characterized rather small in
comparison to face to face collaboration where the oral
dialogue is much more easier to get far from the problem
solving.
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Analysis of participants’ point of view on the value of these activities (1/2)
Teachers’ point of view (related to advantages, drawbacks and conditions of SCMCA’s implementation
Question 1: When during the teaching process do you consider that computer supported collaborative problem solving is appropriate be to applied?
In cases teachers can design appropriate activities.
As an alternative way of teaching.
For checking students’ concepts and
misunderstandings
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Analysis of participants’ point of view on the value of these activities (2/2)
Teachers’ point of view (related to advantages, drawbacks and conditions of SCMCA’s implementation
Question 2: Are there advantages between computer supported collaborative problem solving and face-to face collaboration, and if yes what are these according to
your opinion?
Students’ dialogues and actions availability
Positive students’ attitude.
Inexistence of off-task messages
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Conclusions (1/3)
Concerning the quality of synchronous collaborative
activity
•Most of the students in synchronous collaborative modelling, (via ModellingSpace) were actively engaged, participating in Project Management and Social Negotiations episodes.
•Teachers’ participation varied significantly, affecting as expected the whole collaborative process.
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Conclusions (2/3)
Students were highly motivated
•Students participated actively during the whole sessions (actions based analysis over time)
•Students’ off- task messages were less than 10%, in all the cases
•Teachers affirm that almost all of their students were highly concentrated during the sessions, situation difficult to be achieved during traditional courses.
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Conclusions (3/3)
Teachers’ opinion was positive
•Students were motivated, something that is proved according to their opinion by the inexistence of off-task messages and students’ positive attitude.
•Unlike to face-to-face collaboration students’ dialogues and actions are available.
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Discussion (1/2)
Our findings suggest significant advantages of the approach under certain conditions:
Selection of critical instances related to every day course.
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005
Existence of appropriate interactions’ analysis tools.
Application of appropriate structured scripts.
Appropriate teachers’ interventions.
Discussion (2/2)
Exploitation of significant new aspectsof teachers’ participation with co-located participants
Exploitation of mobile technologies in SCMCAin order to permit a more convenient and integrated
approach in the typical classroom
CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005