Current Trends in CSCL Orchestration New Perspectives for Improving CSCL Orchestration in a Language Learning Environment

Eirini Dellatola Computer Science, Multimedia, and Telecommunications

Open University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain eidellatola@gmail.com

Thanasis Daradoumis1,2 1Computer Science, Multimedia, and Telecommunications

Open University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain 2Department of Cultural Technology and Communication

University of Aegean, Mytilini, Greece adaradoumis@uoc.edu

Abstract— Recent research shows that Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) can offer many advantages to Language Teaching and Learning such as motivate students to participate in an environment where they are asked to use their skills to communicate effectively. However, teachers have to face numerous problems and complicated issues of management when dealing with such a complex pedagogy and the technologies involved. One of the most promising solutions so far is this of “orchestration”; a field where there has been a thriving research activity over the last years, yet with various open issues to be discussed and little research focused on Language Learning. This is a position paper which aims at presenting the recent developments on this field and discovering the open research questions that will lead to the proposal of a context-aware orchestration framework, which will improve the orchestration of CSCL activities in a language learning environment.

Keywords—Computer Supported Collaborative Learning; orchestration; language learning

I. INTRODUCTION Orchestration is a relatively new term which sounds quite

promising, even though academics still argue about its actual definition and role. The whole idea of orchestration emerged through the articles of many academics that have used the term to describe the real-time management of activities and various learning processes. But it was Dillenbourg and Jermann who brought orchestration in the spotlight by discussing the metaphor of orchestration in the field of Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) and how this differs from its musical counterpart [1]. Furthermore, Rochelle, Dimitriadis and Hoppe claim that the discussion on the actual role of orchestration sparks new interest to the community in re-evaluating the relationship between research and practice in the field of CSCL [2]. Following the same direction, Chan proposes reconsidering the relationship between theory and practice [3]. Researchers have come to the conclusion that classrooms are complex as well as highly unpredictable and that is the main reason why models, produced in labs, cannot be put in practice in real classroom conditions. Nonetheless, there is little agreement on anything else and many topics are under scrutiny.

II. CSCL IN LANGUAGE LEARNING So far the field of Technology Enhanced Language

Learning (TELL), or Computer Assisted Language Learning

(CALL) as it is alternatively known, has been focused mainly on individual learning. However, virtually all modern foreign language teaching methods have originated from the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) movement which emphasizes the effective learning results from communicative, unrehearsed, meaningful, authentic, and interactive use of the target language [4]. This explains why CSCL has gained some popularity in the field of Language Teaching recently.

Recent studies have shown that collaboration may benefit students’ learning since students feel more comfortable when interacting with their peers. Furthermore, this makes learning process more realistic and simulates the natural conversations taking place outside the classroom. Researchers have also concluded that students are more motivated when they are to work in pairs or groups. Language learners in particular, need to use the target language to interact with each other which in turn improves their language skills. All these demonstrate that collaboration seems to enhance students’ motivation and help to achieve the desirable learning outcomes [5].

One of the most well-known uses of CSCL in Language Learning is Computer Supported Collaborative Writing in L2 (CSCWL2) which has been argued to foster greater awareness of the writing process, help writers gain a sense of audience and aid in the development of writing skills [6]. Another example is that of telecollaboration which refers to the use of online communication tools to bring together language learners from different countries for the development of collaborative project work and intercultural exchange [7].

However, the majority of CSCLL activities presented so far fail to effectively incorporate the actual sense of collaboration. Therefore further research must be conducted in the field and orchestration has the potential to play an important role in it.

III. RECENT STUDIES ON ORCHESTRATION According to Dillenbourg’s definition “Orchestration

refers to how a teacher manages, in real time, multi-layered activities in a multi-constraints context.” He also suggested some design principles, based on his interaction with teachers in real classroom conditions, which include: control, visibility, flexibility, physicality and minimalism [8].

Apart from Dillenbourg’s definition we encounter a few more in the recent literature such as the narrower version of

2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies

978-1-4799-4038-7/14 $31.00 © 2014 IEEE

DOI 10.1109/ICALT.2014.124

413

Chan [3], the more comprehensive one of Prieto, Holenko-Dlab, Abdulwahed, Gutierrez and Balid [9] and Tchounikine’s proposal to distinguish the terms orchestration technology and orchestrable technology in order to clarify the idea of the orchestration design [10].

Different solutions and tools have been developed to provide support in orchestration. Particularly scripts are thought to be the most popular means of supporting teachers by structuring the flow of the collaborative activities [3][11]. Another approach in CSCL orchestration is the use of pedagogical patterns as a kind of mediating artefacts.

Some of the most known CSCL activities that have been orchestrated recently and some orchestration tools are: ArgueGraph: a system which aims to trigger argumentation by grouping students with different opinions [12], Latern: an interactive, portable lamp used as a tool for real time regulation which can implement CSCL scripts in an ambient way [13], Subtle Stone: a squeezable, handheld device that allows students to communicate their feeling to their teachers [14], SOS (Signal Orchestration System): a system based on the use of ambient displays to communicate orchestration signals flexibly configured in a manager, according to the teachers’ needs and the characteristics of specific CL flows [15], and GLUEPS-AR: a recent tool combining orchestration with Augmented Reality which helps teachers with the orchestration of across-spaces learning situations [16].

Based on the scientific observations, a framework that depicts the current discourse on classroom orchestration has been introduced. The framework, called “5+3”, divides the eight main themes which are usually addressed in learning scenarios in two categories. The first one, known as “what orchestration entails” includes: 1. the design and planning of learning activities and technological tools, 2. the regulation and management of the factors involved in the learning process (class, time, workflow, group management), 3. the adaptation, flexibility and intervention that should take place when unexpected situations occur, 4. the awareness and assessment which can provide insight into the progress of the learning activities and 5. the roles of teachers and other actors who are involved. On the other hand, the second category includes three factors which answer the question “how orchestration is done?”. Those are: 1. pragmatism and practice, 2. alignment and synergy of the elements to be orchestrated and 3. the models and theories used [9].

The above framework offers some fundamental guidelines of what we should take into consideration when we refer to orchestration. Nevertheless, none of the existing tools are flexible enough to deal with unexpected, unpredictable or extrinsic events and therefore more specialized tools and methods should be developed.

IV. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Without a widely acceptable definition, orchestration

appears to be quite abstract as a term. Researchers disagree on many issues, such as whether orchestration should be exclusively limited in the classroom or not, whether it must be mainly focused on computing and whether students must have active roles in it.

Some years ago when orchestration started to gain attention among scientists, the belief that the teacher should have the leading role was dominant. As Perotta and Evans state orchestration is considered as a way to reinstate the centrality of the teacher [17]. Recently, though, this theory has been disputed and new researches claim that students should have their own part in orchestration. Sharples, for example, mentions that students must be part of the orchestration solution and able to operate the orchestration technology. If we allow students to actively take part in orchestration then teachers will be less occupied with the need to learn and manipulate new technology [18]. Additionally, as J.A. Munoz-Cristobal et al. state, the orchestration of different learning situations is quite challenging for teachers. At the same time, students have to follow a predefined learning scenario which cannot be highly motivating. So teacher-centred designs should be replaced by student-centred ones, where activities would be managed by students themselves. In fact, this would improve the whole learning experience [19].

Another issue to be discussed is the kind of environments orchestration should involve. The original idea of orchestration put emphasis on computing. However, there are two different ideas recently formed. On the one hand, as Perotta and Evans claim, orchestration is an opportunity to incorporate a more “sociological” aspect in TEL and focus less on computers [17]. On the other hand, there is widespread belief that the focus on classroom environments is too narrow and limits the possibilities of orchestration. Supporting the same belief, Munoz-Cristobal et al. claim that orchestration tools must involve across-spaces learning situations and combine multiple physical and virtual spaces, such as Web 2.0 tools, Virtual Learning Environments (VLE) and Augmented-Reality physical spaces [16].

Finally, when orchestration should take place and who should make decisions are two other controversial issues. Tchounikine opts for real time making decisions [10] but Kollar and Fischer propose a non-teacher designer making decisions that can be later modified by teachers [20].

Based on the above observations the following research questions emerge when designing a context-aware framework for the orchestration of TELL.

• Who should be involved in the orchestration and who has the leading role? Should designs for orchestration be teacher or student-centered? Which of the two would better facilitate a language learning scenario?

• How can the peculiarities of a language teaching environment affect the design of an orchestration framework? What are the necessary people’s interactions and how should they be controlled?

• What are the learning activities that have to be orchestrated? Do they involve both physical classroom activities and those taking place outside the classroom or only the former?

• When and how should orchestration take place? Before or during the lesson planning? What is the role of time and other contextual factors in the orchestration framework?

414

How should available time and other factors involved in the learning process be managed?

Our study will aim at evaluating the current solutions for orchestration in a foreign language classroom and explore the possible answers to the above research questions.

V. OUR PROPOSAL Our proposal for the current investigation is to follow a

cyclic process divided in different phases. Firstly, we will select the most relevant literature and classify it into two categories: pedagogical approaches related to collaborative language learning and advanced learning technologies related to orchestration of CSCL activities.

In the second phase we will analyse the most well known orchestration models and tools and implement them in different CSCL language learning activities. In this phase we will apply learning design employing physical classroom activities and resources as well as remote ones while focusing on productive language skills activities. Also we will explore how the involved participants interact with each other and how this affects both the proposed learning design and time management. We will evaluate the effectiveness of learning design through the inquiry based learning and teacher inquiry approach, with the ultimate aim of detecting the similarities and differences among the solutions and recognizing the problems emerging from the peculiarities of a language learning environments. All this process will ultimately inform and suggest an integrated dynamic model of teaching as design inquiry of learning.

Moreover, since the study will include both face-to-face and remote online learning situations, context is an important aspect to consider. The context of learning design encompasses the material, social and intentional factors which define the space in which learners and educators operate. In the recent past, personalization has been mostly explored through learner's profiles but a context-aware framework can provide learners with advanced and enriched information on the context where learning and interaction take place and thus contribute to enhance learners’ engagement and performance. In fact, a new pedagogy is needed for TELL based on self-regulated, experiential learning in groups where learners are supported to achieve a deeper self understanding in relation to others.

In the third phase, based on our previous analysis, we will propose a context-aware CSCL orchestration framework catering for the special needs of a language learning classroom. Our final step will be to evaluate this framework and test whether it accomplishes the main objectives of this research.

VI. CONCLUSION Throughout this paper we tried to present a review of the

scientific activities taking place in the field of orchestration. It is evident that this field is still in its infancy and there are a lot of open issues to be answered. However, both research and controversy are vigorous at the moment and we believe that further study should be conducted and a more specific framework should be proposed that will cater for the needs of language learning scenarios.

REFERENCES [1] P. Dillenbourg and P. Jermann (2010). Technology for classroom

orchestration. New science of learning, p. 525-552. Springer New York. [2] J. Roshelle, Y. Dimitriadis and U. Hoppe (2013). Classroom

orchestration: Synthesis. Computers & Education, 69, 523-526 (2013), ELSEVIER.

[3] T-W. Chan (2013). Sharing sentiment and wearing a pair of “field spectacles” to view classroom orchestration. Computers & Education (2013) p. 514-516, ELSEVIER.

[4] Brown, H. D. (2000) Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.) p. 266-267. New York: Longman.

[5] Zou, B. (2010) Computer-Supported Collaboration in Language Learning. In Juan, A. A. et al (eds.) Monitoring and Assessment in Online Collaborative Environments: Emergent Computational Technologies for E-learning Support (pp. 218-234). IGI Global, USA.

[6] F. Blin and Ch. Appel. (2011) Computer Supported Collaborative Writing in Practice: An Activity Theoretical Study CALICO Journal, v28 n2 p473-497. Jan 2011.

[7] Roggenkamp, D. (2009). Applying computer supported collaborative learning principles to telecollaboration. Prepared for LLMC Conference, 2009, National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

[8] P. Dillenbourg (2013). Design for classroom orchestration. Computers & Education (2013), p. 485-492, ELSEVIER.

[9] L. P. Prieto, M. Holenko-Dlab, M. Abdulwahed, I. Gutierrez and W. Balid (2011). Orchestrating technology enhanced learning: a literature review and a conceptual framework. International journal of Technology-Enhanced Learning (IJTEL), 3(6), 583-598.

[10] P. Tchounikine (2013). Clarifying design of orchestration: orchestration and orchestrable technology, scripting and conducting. Computers & Education (2013), p. 500-503, ELSEVIER.

[11] P. Dillenbourg and F. Hong (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23.

[12] P. Jermann, P. Dillenbourg (1999). An analysis of learner arguments in a collective learning environment. Proceedings of the third CSCL Conference, pp. 265-273, Stanford, Dec. 1999.

[13] H. Alavi, P. Dillenbourg (2011). Lantern 2.0: A Pervasive Scripting Tool. (http://www.dfki.de/EducationCHI2011/Site/Program_files/hcieducationchi11_5.pdf)

[14] M. Balaam, G. Fitzpatrick, J. Good and R. Luckin (2010). Exploring Affective Technologies for the Classroom with the Subtle Stone. Proceeding CHI '10 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 1623-1632, ACM New York, USA.

[15] D. Hernandez-Leo, R. Nieves, J. P. Carrascal and J. Blat (2013). Signal Orchestration System for Face-to-Face Collaborative Learning Flows. EC-TEL 2013, pp. 560-564, Springer-Verlag Berlin.

[16] J. A. Munoz-Cristobal, L. P. Prieto, J. I. Asensio-Perez, I. M. Jorrin-Abellan, A. Martinez-Mones and Y. Dimitriadis (2013). GLUEPS-AR: A system for the orchestration of Learning Situations across spaces using Augmented Reality. EC-TEL 2013, pp. 565-568, Springer-Verlag Berlin.

[17] C. Perrotta and M.A. Evans (2013). Orchestration, power, and educational technology: A response to Dillenbourg. Computers & Education, p. 520-522, ELSEVIER.

[18] M. Sharples (2013). Shared orchestration within and beyond the classroom. Computers & Education, 69 p. 504–506, ELSEVIER.

[19] J. A. Munoz-Cristobal, L. P. Prieto, J. I. Asensio-Perez, I. M. Jorrin-Abellan, A. Martinez-Mones and Y. Dimitriadis (2013).Sharing the burden: Introducing Student-Centered Orchestration in Across-Spaces Learning Situations. EC-TEL 2013, p. 621-622, Springer-Verlag Berlin..

[20] I. Kollar and Fr. Fischer (2013). Orchestration is nothing without conducting–but arranging ties the two together! A response to Dillenbourg (2011). Computers & Education, p.507-509, ELSEVIER.

415