3. luento tieto- ja viestintätekniikan pedagogiset perusteet: tietokoneavusteinen yhteisöllinen...
DESCRIPTION
Luento aiheesta tietokoneavusteinen yhteisöllinen oppiminen. Luennon runkona on käytetty tätä kirjankappaletta: "Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning: from design to orchestration. In Technology-Enhanced Learning. Principles and products (p. 3-19). Edited by N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, T., A. Lazonder & S. Barnes. Springer.TRANSCRIPT
Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning
Jari Laru, M.Ed, University Teacher , Deparment of Educational Sciences,
University of Oulu
410014Y Tieto- ja viestintätekniikka pedagogisena työvälineenä 2011
Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning: from design to orchestration. In Technology-Enhanced Learning. Principles and products (p. 3-19). Edited by N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, T., A. Lazonder & S. Barnes. Springer.
Structure of this lecture is based on:
most of images used have been retrieved from commons.wikipedia.org
Tieto- ja viestintätekniikka pedagogisena työvälineenä, luennot
http://www.slideshare.net/larux/johdantoluento-tieto-ja-viestinttekniikan-perusteet-opintojaksolle
http://www.slideshare.net/larux/1-luento-tieto-ja-viestinttekniikan-perusteet-opintojaksolla-tvt-opetuskytn-historia
http://www.slideshare.net/larux/2-luento-tieto-ja-viestinttekniikan-pedagogiset-perusteet-kurssilla-tvt-ja-yhteiskunta
http://www.slideshare.net/larux/3-luento-tieto-ja-viestinttekniikan-pedagogiset-perusteet-tietokoneavusteinen-yhteisllinen-oppiminen-cscl
http://www.slideshare.net/larux/4-luento-tieto-ja-viestinttekniikan-pedagogiset-perusteet-nykyajan-medialukutataito
http://www.slideshare.net/larux/5-luento-tieto-ja-viestinttekniikan-pedagoginen-opetuskytt-kurssil
Http://www.slideshare.net/larux & http://jarinopetus.wordpress.com
Collaborative learning / Collaborative education – ”history”
“Collaborative education in the U.S. began in the 1970s as a response to the previous decade’s mentality that students who needed help and didn’t seek this help did not belong in college. In response to this, colleges began providing peer tutoring and in-class group work. This led to the discovery that these forms of collaboration did not change what people learned, but how they learned”
Learning of technology
Learning with technology
Taylor, R. (1980). The Computer in the School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee. NY: Teachers College Press
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning. Collaborative learning Cognitive and computational approaches, 1–16. Citeseer. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.4896&rep=rep1&type=pdf
A coordinated synchronous activity that is the result of continued attempt to construct and maintain a shared conception of a problem (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995)
A coordinated synchronous activity that is the result of continued attempt to construct and maintain a shared conception of a problem (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995)
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in paired problem solving. Computersupported collaborative learning (pp. 69-97). Springer-Verlag.
What is collaborative learning?
• Structure of interaction designed to facilitate accomplishment of an end product or goal through people working together in groups
• well-stuctured knowledge domain
• is accomplished by the division of labor among participants, as an activity where each person is responsible for a portion of the problem solving
Cooperative vs. Collaborative
• Collaboration as a philiosophy of interaction and personal lifestyle
• Ill-structured knowledge domain
• mutual engagement of participants in a coordinated effort to solve problem together
Cooperative learning Collaborative learning
Resta & Laferriere, 2007; Panitz, 1996; Slavin, 1997; Teasley, 1995
Commonalities• Learning is active
• The teacher is usually more a facilitator than a “sage on the stage”
• Teaching and learning are shared experiences
• Students participate in small-group activities
• Students take responsibility for learning
• Students reflect on their own assumptions and thought processes
• Social and team skills are developed through the give-and-take of consensus-building
Kirchner, 2001
Four instructional motives for the use of technology in support of collaborative
learning1. To prepare students for the knowledge
society (collaboration skills and knowledge creation
2. To enhance students cognitive performance or foster deep understanding
3. To add flexibility of time and space for cooperative/collaborative learning
4. To foster student engagement and keep track of student cooperative/collaborative work
Resta & Laferriere, 2007
1. More interaction balances out less individualisation
Dickson, W. & Vereen, M. A. (1983). Two students at one microcomputer. Theory Into Practice, 22(4), 296-300. doi:10.1080/00405848309543077
1. More interaction balances out less individualisation
“it appeared that when we did have to put two children in front of a computer, the results were actually positive: the imperfect individualisation was compensated for by the benefits of social interactions”
1983: Key educational principle was the adaptation of instruction to individual needs
1983: Key educational principle was the adaptation of instruction to individual needs
2. There is an illusion of convergence,actually CSCL practises lie at crossroads of two different perspectives:
A. Distributed cognition (socio-cognitive)B. Situated cognition (socio-cultural)
12
LET - Oppimisen ja koulutusteknologian tutkimusyksikköJari Laru, 22.4.2009
• From Instructional and educational psychology activities that foster social interactions are methods by which individuals construct knowledge
A. Distributed cognition (socio-cognitive)
http://www.stanford.edu/~roypea/RoyPDF%20folder/A67_Pea_93_DI_CUP.pdf
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
14
LET - Oppimisen ja koulutusteknologian tutkimusyksikköJari Laru, 22.4.2009
Kognitiiviset työkalut 1/3
• “Mobiililaitteita tuleekin tarkastella kognitiivisina työkaluina, ei pelkkinä teknologisista lähtökohdista suunniteltuina tiedonsiirtolaitteina” (Laru, ITK 2003)
15
LET - Oppimisen ja koulutusteknologian tutkimusyksikköJari Laru, 22.4.2009
Kognitiiviset työkalut 2/3
• Kognitiivisen työkalun käsite kattaa kaikki ne välineet, joita voidaan käyttää kognitiivisten prosessien tukemiseen (Lajoie 1993). Tarkemman määrittelyn mukaan se kattaa ne välineet, jotka tukevat ajattelun, ongelmanratkaisun ja oppimisen mahdollistavia kognitiivisia prosesseja (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996).
• Kognitiivisten työvälineiden teoreettinen tausta nousee Hutchinsin (1995) hajautetun kognition ja Pean (1993) hajautetun asiantuntijuuden teorioista, joiden mukaan käytämme ympärillämme olevia ihmisiä, symboleja ja artefakteja jatkuvasti ja tiedostamattamme osana arkipäiväistä toimintaamme.
16
LET - Oppimisen ja koulutusteknologian tutkimusyksikköJari Laru, 22.4.2009
Kognitiiviset työkalut 3/3
• Älypuhelinten yleistyminen on mahdollistamassa sekä pöytätietokoneista tuttujen kognitiivisten “työkalujen mobilisoinnin” että täysin uudenlaistet sovellukset, jotka hyödyntävät mobiiliteknologian erityispiirteitä (Keefe & Zucker, 2003; Rochelle & Pea, 2002)
17
LET - Oppimisen ja koulutusteknologian tutkimusyksikköJari Laru, 22.4.2009
B. Situated cognition (socio-cultural)
• Within a socio-cultural perspective, social interaction is more than a method, it is the essence of cognition and hence the goal of learning
Lave and Wenger provide details of aprrenticeships from among midvives, tailors, quartermasters, butchers, and alcoholics.
3. The formal/informal border is blurred
•one spesific feature of CSCL has been it’s relevance for both formal and informal learning, without separating these two worlds hermeneutically
•Empirical studies attemps to transfer succesfull (informal) practises into classrooms, by transforming schools into learning communities (Bielaczyk & Collins, 1999; Scardmalia & Bereiter, 1994)
computer-supported intentional learning environments (CSILE) • aim at reframing classroom
discourse to support knowledge building in ways extensible to out-of-school knowledge- advancing enterprises and make school education more situated (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
• In one scenario, records made at the place of work (knowledge in action) "ground" reflective activities in the classroom. (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994)
http://www.ikit.org/fulltext/CSILE_KF.pdf
4. Collaborative learning is not a
recipe
22
LET - Oppimisen ja koulutusteknologian tutkimusyksikköJari Laru, 22.4.2009
Global CSCL question
• Collaboration per se does not produce learning outcomes; it’s results depend upon the extent to which groups actually engage in productive interactions.
• Global CSCL reseach question(s): under which conditions is a CSCL environment effective? (Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye, & O’Malley, 1996)– under which conditions do specific interactions occur?– which interactions are predictive of learning outcomes?
• Three main categories have been found to facilitate learning:– explanation– argumentation / negotiation– mutual regulation
The key consequence is at design level: the purpose of a CSCL environment is not simply to enable collaboration across distance but to create condition in which effective group interactions are expected to occur
Learning design example: Supporting small-group learning
using multiple Web 2.0 tools: A case study in the higher education contex
Lecture
Discussion
Phototaking
Blogging
Lecture
Discussion
Phototaking
Blogging
Lecture
Discussion
Phototaking
Blogging
Week 1Learning
infrastructures
Lecture
Discussion
Phototaking
Blogging
Lecture
Discussion
Phototaking
Blogging
Lecture
Discussion
Phototaking
Blogging
A.Ground
B.Reflect
Discussion (week 4) Discussion (week 9)
Wikiwork (weeks 4-12)
C.Conceptualize
D. Reflect & elaborate
E. Review & evaluate
F. Co-construct knowledge
Phases
1 day
6 days
Collaborative
Solo
Collaborative
Week 2Learning
communities
Week 3Metacognition
Week 6Self-regulated
learning
Week 7Learning design
Week 8Social media in
learning
1 day
G.m
onit
or
Jari Laru, Piia Naykki, Sanna Jarvela, Supporting small-group learning using multiple Web 2.0 tools: A case study in the higher education context, The Internet and Higher Education, In Press,
Accepted Manuscript, Available online 28 August 2011, ISSN 1096-7516, DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.004
5. Media effectiviness is a
myth
•” … This is perhaps not surprising because the same claims have been made about every new technology developed in the last century. For example, when the motion picture, radio, and television were invented, each was hailed as answer to solving educational problems” (Heinich, 1979; Cuban, 1986; Mayer, 1999).
•”Instructional methods make the difference in how well students learn, not the message or the delivery technology” (Clark, 1983)
Over-expectations with to respect to its intrinsic effects on learning
27
LET - Oppimisen ja koulutusteknologian tutkimusyksikköJari Laru, 22.4.2009
Example: FLE3mobile & mlearning
28
Overall, the analyses revealed nonparticipative behaviour within the online community. The social network analysis revealed structural holes and sparse collaboration among participants in the offline community. It was found that due to their separated practices in the offline community, they did not have a need for mobile collaboration tools in their practices
Laru, J. & Jarvela, S. (2008). Social Patterns in Mobile Technology Mediated Collaboration among Members of the Professional Distance Education Community. Educational Media International, 45(1), 17-32
6.What matters is the effort required
to construct shared knowledge
Key question for CSCL:•How do learners build a shared
understanding of the task to be accomplished?
•CSCL definition: “Roschelle & Teasley (1995) defined collaborative learning as the co-construction of shared understanding”
•=> Grounding: it refers to the mechanisms by which two interlocutors detect whether their partner has understood what they meant and repair eventual misunderstandings
do not take it simplistically•peer never build a fully shared
understanding
•=> through phases of convergence, pairs find out new differences of viewpoints that they may need overcome, and so forth
•during cycle of divergence/convergence phases, what matters is not only final result but also effort towards shared under understanding (swartch, 1995)
increase the effort..•..Increase the initial divergence
among students and hence increase the effort to build a joint solution
•CSCL scripts, e.g. arguegraph, jigsaw
Jigsaw
Arguegraph
CSCL Environments..
•..combine divergence and convergence functionalities: e.g. shared representations and visual identification of individual contributions or viewpoints (awareness tools)
Group awareness widget, Kreijns, kirchner & johchems (2002)
Mindmap tool as shared representation: Näykki & Järvelä (2008).
Case Flyers & fieldtrip
Subject: research question
Group: name, task: #
Caim: We claim
Ground: Because we see
Warrant: textbook says
Image placed hereImage placed here
Research question
Other research qu..
Date / time
Date / time
Story snippet 1
Date / time
AA BB CC DD
Sending off
Story Snipp
et
Story Snipp
et
Story snippet 1 BB
Research question Date / time
AA
Story snippet 1
1/1
Story snippet textStory snippet text
Grounding
Task Iintroduction
Task feedback
Conclusion
Snippet types
Group 1 Other groupsLaru, J., Järvelä, S. & Clariana, R. B. (2010). Supporting collaborative inquiry during a biology field trip with mobile peer-to-peer tools for
learning: a case study with K-12 learners. Interactive Learning Environments
7. Greater resemblance to
face-to-face interaction is not necessarily better
Imitation bias
•“is the belief that the more a medium resembles face-to-face interaction, the better” (Hollan & Stornetta, 1992)
•Media richness is also erranously considered to predit effectiviness, despite empirical counter-evidence:
•video-supported collaborative work vs. audio-only collaborative work. => not necessarily better
Example of media effectiviness
Traditional virtual learning environments - e.g. Optima & Blackboard
..Actually, technology benefits are elsewhere•CSCL Question is no longer “how
to compensate for not being face-to-face” (~ was topic 20 years ago)
•Now it is “How to fulfil collaborative functionalities that are not available in face-to-face situations” (Haake, 2006)
..new features apply to: 1. computer mediated
communication•making it different from face-to-face
Future Learning Environment 3 - fle3.uiah.fi
nstudy - http://learningkit.sfu.ca/lucb/celc-2009-nStudy.pdf
Gstudy / Learning Kit - http://learningkit.sfu.ca/index.html
nstudy ohjeita (LET) - http://www.slideshare.net/LEToulu/ohjeet-
nstudy
..new features apply to: 2. augmenting face-to-face
situations
Tinkertable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSwuyM4WkN4 Tinkersheets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bms4_i9DI2g&feature=related
“Traditional learning technologies fit with students who sit on a chair in front of a table with a computer in a quiet environment. What is the potential of learning technologies for students who move all the time, carry objects, may have dirty hands and work in a noisy environment? Are learning technologies irrelevant for them or should we develop new ways to use technologies that are more appropriate to these contexts?”
Leading House - DUAL T project: Integrating technologies in heterogeneous contexts, CRAFT-EPFL Switzerland
..new features apply to: 2. augmenting face-to-face
situations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxdoKsjQbyw
Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (2002). A walk on the WILD side: how wireless handhelds may change CSCL, 51-60. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1658616.1658624
2002“His 2002 paper with Roy Pea, "Walk on the Wild Side," has been influential in understanding the future possibilities for wireless handheld learning devices”
ONE-TO-ONE TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNING
http://www.flickr.com/photos/olpc/3038680654/
Chan, T.-W., Roschelle, J., Hsi, S., Kinshuk, K., BROWN, T., Brown, T., Patton, C., et al. (2006). One-to-one technology-enhanced learning: an opportunity for global research collaboration. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 1-26. Retrieved from http://www.worldscinet.com/abstract?id=pii:S1793206806000032
8. Task representations mediate verbal
interactions
Representations & verbal interactions
•The way representations shape social interactions is referred to by Suthers and Hundhausen (2003) as “representational guidance”
•such cognitive tools not only shape social interactions but, if they get internalized, also shape the way students reason about the domain (Kuutti & Kaptelin, 1997)
Examples I
Beldevere argumentation tool - Suthers, Weiner, Connelly & Paolucci, 1995
Microworlds - Roschelle & Teasley, 1995
Examples II
9. Structuring communication is
a subtle compromise
Semi-structured interfaces
• Semi-structured communication tools aim to scaffold productive interactions by making them easier: for instance “sentence openers”, such as “please explain why”
• It’s example of flexible structuring - students have freedom to use or not to use the available widgets
• Poor results (e.g. Baker & Lund, 1997)
Solution: CSCL scripts
Scripts originate from the fact that it is difficult to predict the effects of collaborative learning by controlling external conditions such as group composition or task features.
Actually, the effects of collaborative learning depend on the quality of interactions that take place among group members.
Therefore, scripts aim to enhance the probability that knowledge generative interactions such as conflict resolution, explanation or mutual regulation occur during the collaboration process.
Different scripts• A macro-script sets up conditions in
which argumentation should occur, as in the ArgueGraph, for instance by pairing students with opposite opinions.
• A micro-script scaffolds the interaction process per se: when a learner brings an argument, the script will for instance prompt his or her peer to state a counter-argument (Kollar et al, in press)
• For both micro- and macro-scripts, the right level of scaffolding is a subtle compromise between the need for structuring and the risk of over-scripting (dillenbourg, 2002)
Arguegraph script
10. Interaction analysis can be
partly automated
•The degree of processing of these interactions varies from mirroring to guiding (Jermann, Soller & Muhlenbrock, 2001)
Mirroring: noise sensitive table
•The table, Reflect, addresses the issue of unbalanced participation during group discussions. By displaying on its surface a shared visualization of member participation, Reflect is meant to encourage participants to avoid the extremes of over- and under-participation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN3ltvIERD4An Interactive Table for Supporting Participation Balance in Face-to-Face Collaborative LearningBachour, Khaled ; Kaplan, Frédéric ; Dillenbourg, Pierre Accepted in: IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 2010Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2010.ISSN: 1939-1382
Guiding•More complex analyses enable CSCL
environments provide feedback to groups or even to suggest changes regarding to their teamwork
Towards an Automatic Measure of Transactivity in On-line DiscussionsTowards an Automatic Measure of Transactivity in On-line Discussions
Puntambekar, Sadhana; Erkens, Gijsbert; Hmelo-Silver, Cindy (Eds.) Analyzing Interactions in CSCL Methods, Approaches and Issues- Series: Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, Vol. 100 1st Edition., 2010, 400 p. 50 illus., Hardcover ISBN: 978-1-4419-7709-0 Due: January 29, 2011
AI techniques (such as planning, machine learning, intelligent agent approaches, semantic web techniques, and others) have been proposed to tackle the challenging issues emerging when trying to model and manage the complexity of the collaborative learning activity. text, videos etctext, videos etc
log-datalog-data
methodsmethods
11. There is a shift from personal to
interpersonal computers
http://www.slideshare.net/larux/3-luento-tieto-ja-viestinttekniikan-pedagogiset-perusteet-tietokoneavusteinen-yhteisllinen-oppiminen-cscl
http://www.fkaplan.com/file/caif-interpersonal.doc
Kaplan, F., DoLenh, S., Bachour, K., Kao, G. Y.-ing, Gault, C., Dillenbourg, P., Huang, J., et al. (2009). Interactive Artifacts and Furniture Supporting Collaborative Work and Learning (Vol. 10, pp. 1-17). Boston, MA: Springer US. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/uxr3q7t022751275/
2008: interpersonal computers
RoomwareTangibles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5GWUx3ZSMw
Tangibles
Phidgets Wearables
Wearables
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hXM6paYOME
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UPiFeJhwS4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmLU4GS7zAI
Multi-input devicesComputers with multiple
mices
Pawar, U. S., Pal, J., & Toyama, K. (2006). Multiple mice for computers in education in developing countries. In Proceedings of IEEE/ACM ICTD 2006.
http://www.webtlk.com/2008/12/19/how-to-install-multiple-mice-mouse-and-keyboards-on-the-same-computer/
First axis: phidgets, tangibles, wearables, roomware
Tangible objects & interfaces
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UPiFeJhwS4
First axis: phidgets, tangibles, wearables, roomware
Roomware
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baDJNtBT1Fg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U05WeXPGlk
First axis: phidgets, tangibles, wearables, roomware
Mobiles & phidgets
Second Axis: Location based mobile technologies
http://vimeo.com/11739878
Conclusions
Summary
•CSCL environment is not simply a tool to support communication among remote students but a tool used in both co-presence and distance settings for shaping verbal interactions in several ways and for capturing, analyzing and mirroring these interactions in realtime
CSCL in short
From PPT by Jermann, P. Scripting collaboration with ManyScripts http://manyscripts.epfl.ch/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLC8Ew8J9Hg
Kysymyksiä / tehtäviä pohdittavaksi
(vaihtoehtoisia)• Millaisia kokemuksia sinulla on
tietokoneavusteisesta yhteisöllisestä oppimisesta oppilaana tai opettajana? Kerro toteutuksesta ja pohdi mitä olisit tehnyt ehkä toisin/mikä onnistui
• Kirjoita omin sanoin tiivistelmä mitä tietokoneavusteinen yhteisöllinen oppiminen (CSCL) on käyttäen hyväksesi tätä luentomateriaalia
• Visioi hieman tulevaisuutta hyödyntäen luentomateriaalia. Millaista on yhteisöllinen oppiminen vuonna 2030?