coding schemes for collaborative learning dialogs chih-yu chao dialogs on dialogs reading group...

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

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


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)


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


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


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


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


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)


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


14

Data Collection Pretest, midtest, posttest results Peer learning dialogs during the problem-

solving session

How much information can I get from the dialogs?


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.


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)


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


18

Hyp2: Learning by Teaching Similar to Hyp1, only switching roles (The difficult part is in determining and

measuring the reinforcement of knowledge.)


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


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


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


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?


24

Your Questions? Or comments?


coding schemes for collaborative learning dialogs chih-yu chao dialogs on dialogs reading group...

Documents

paper slide

research slide

argumentative learners

discourse overview

extent learners

learners work

paper weinberger

knowledge construction