I CALT 200 1 : August 6 -8 Panel Discussion
description
Transcript of I CALT 200 1 : August 6 -8 Panel Discussion
IICALTCALT 200 20011 : : AugustAugust 6 6-8 -8 PanelPanel DiscussionDiscussion
PANEL CHAIRDr Elspeth
McKayRMIT
[email protected] Context–Mediated
Experiential Learning Through Asynchronous Learning Networks
Collaborative Context–Mediated Experiential Learning Through Asynchronous
Learning Networks
Ass. Prof Piet Kommers
University of Twente
Prof. Toshio Okamoto
University of Electro-
Communications
Dr David WileyUtah State University
Prof. Brian GarnerDeakin
University
PanelisPaneliststs
PANEL CHAIRDr Elspeth
McKayRMIT
10 10 10
Panel-1 : Discussion ForumPanel-1 : Discussion Forum
Question / Discussion time 40 Question / Discussion time 40 minsmins
Panel Discussion Forum Panel Discussion Forum
Human-Computer Interactive Learning
Synchronous Asynchronous
Panel Discussion Forum Panel Discussion Forum
Representation Mode
Mechanics
Peer-to-PeerLearning Objects
Collaborative Learning
ALN Knowledge Management
Learner characteristics
Shared Learning Experiences Notational TransferInternal External Exchange
Versatile RepresentationsVersatile Representations
Asynchronous Asynchronous Learning Learning
Transactions via the Transactions via the WebWeb
Collaborative Learning
Representation Mode
Method of Delivery Agent
Learner characteristicsInstructional Format
ALN Coal Face: M e a s u r a b l e I n s t r u c t i o n a l
O u t c o m e s
M e a s u r a b l e I n s t r u c t i o n a l
O u t c o m e s
Do courseware designers have enough Do courseware designers have enough expertise to identify expertise to identify educational educational granularitygranularity when using notational when using notational
scaffoldingscaffolding??
working with instructional
material
ALN Coal Face:
Interaction of Spatial Interaction of Spatial RepresentationsRepresentations
Which type of learning strategyWhich type of learning strategy
Instructional Conditions Forum:
Guided communication tool
Text generates a visual hierarchy of responses
Instructional Format
Method of Delivery Agent
M e a s u r a b l e I n s t r u c t i o n a l
O u t c o m e s
M e a s u r a b l e I n s t r u c t i o n a l
O u t c o m e s
Learner characteristicsInstructor guided resons for discussions:
quality, frequency, adaptiveexperiences of instructor
Event Conditions Internal External
Effective Notational ScaffoldingEffective Notational Scaffolding
working with instructional
material
ALN Coal Face:
Method of Delivery Agent
I me my
you them us
they them those
Chicken and Egg SyndromeChicken and Egg SyndromeSpatial ability : natural / learned Spatial ability : natural / learned
working with instructional
material
ALN Coal Face:
Method of Delivery Agent
M e a s u r a b l e I n s t r u c t i o n a l
O u t c o m e s
M e a s u r a b l e I n s t r u c t i o n a l
O u t c o m e s
Learner characteristics
Event Conditions Internal External
Design for Embedded Cognitive Design for Embedded Cognitive Processing Processing
working with instructional
material
ALN Coal Face:
Learner characteristics
Event Conditions Internal External
Method of Delivery Agent
ss
Awareness of Personal Cognition Awareness of Personal Cognition
External Stakeholder Influence:
varying degrees of
planning for tool integration
level of faculty participation in
planning progress
milestones
working with instructional
material
ALN Coal Face:
Method of Delivery Agent
Learner characteristics
Event Conditions Internal External
Panel-1 : Next SpeakerPanel-1 : Next Speaker
Brian GarnerBrian GarnerProfessor of Computing
School of Computing and Mathematics
Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
Collaborative Learning
Learner characteristics
ALN Knowledge ALN Knowledge ManagementManagement
Professor Brian GarnerProfessor Brian Garner
Collaborative Learning
Experiential Experiential Learning SupportLearning Support
• Human Motivation for Human Motivation for Collaborative Learning Collaborative Learning
• Research PedagogyResearch Pedagogy
• Tacit and Explicit KnowledgeTacit and Explicit Knowledge
• Knowledge DomainsKnowledge Domains
• Research SignificanceResearch Significance
ALN Knowledge ManagementALN Knowledge Management Experiential Learning SupportExperiential Learning Support
Experiential Learning SupportExperiential Learning Support Human Motivation for Collaborative Human Motivation for Collaborative
LearningLearning
Davenport & Prusak (1998) define Davenport & Prusak (1998) define knowledge as …knowledge as …
A fluid mix of framed experience, values, A fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the mind of originates and is applied in the mind of knowers. In organisations it often knowers. In organisations it often becomes embedded not only in becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in documents or repositories but also in organisational routines, processes organisational routines, processes practices and norms.practices and norms.
Experiential Learning SupportExperiential Learning Support
Contexts
and Standards
Knowledge Domains
Project Scenario
Modelling (eg Application
integration)
Control Knowledge
Case Histories
Infer Successful
Quality Propositions
Quality Process Evaluation
CSF’s
Experiential Learning SupportExperiential Learning SupportKnowledge Domain for Inferring Software Knowledge Domain for Inferring Software
Quality Propositions for EC ProjectsQuality Propositions for EC Projects
•…….Learner Activation of and Access to .Learner Activation of and Access to Stored KnowledgeStored Knowledge
•…….Knowledge as Contextual Forms and .Knowledge as Contextual Forms and Reference ModelsReference Models
•…….Validation of Spreading Activation .Validation of Spreading Activation Theories in Experiential LearningTheories in Experiential Learning
•…….Context Mining Algorithms.Context Mining Algorithms
Experiential Learning SupportExperiential Learning SupportResearch PedagogyResearch Pedagogy
•…….Development of Novel Evaluation .Development of Novel Evaluation Instruments for Measuring Cognitive Instruments for Measuring Cognitive
Performance DynamicsPerformance Dynamics
•…….Discovery of New Instructional .Discovery of New Instructional Strategies that Activate Context-Strategies that Activate Context-Mediated Reasoning ProcessesMediated Reasoning Processes
Experiential Learning SupportExperiential Learning SupportResearch SignificanceResearch Significance
Panel-1 : Next SpeakerPanel-1 : Next Speaker
Collaborative Learning
Professor Toshio OkamotoProfessor Toshio OkamotoDirector, Research Station of Advanced e-Learning
Graduate School of Information Systems
University of Electro-Communications, Tokyo, Japan
Meanings/Benefits to standardizationMeanings/Benefits to standardization
ALN Knowledge ALN Knowledge ManagementManagement
Collaborative Learning
Experiential Experiential Learning SupportLearning Support
Current SituationCurrent Situation
There is an increasing requirement for an There is an increasing requirement for an infrastructure to enable user interactions and infrastructure to enable user interactions and collaborations based around mutual goals and collaborations based around mutual goals and shared data. shared data.
Geographically distributed organizations/persons Geographically distributed organizations/persons require this support for their internal/external require this support for their internal/external learning/activity. learning/activity.
Shared objects and communication, space in which Shared objects and communication, space in which users are aware of one another while learning in users are aware of one another while learning in shared objects(user- and task awareness, and units shared objects(user- and task awareness, and units of resource management).of resource management).
Shared resource management, support for user Shared resource management, support for user interactioninteraction
DefinitionsDefinitions
““collaborative learning is defined as a learning collaborative learning is defined as a learning process that emphasizes group or cooperative process that emphasizes group or cooperative efforts among faculty and learners.”efforts among faculty and learners.”
Interpersonal collaboration in the learning Interpersonal collaboration in the learning process and provide an interface to a shared process and provide an interface to a shared environment.environment.
there are desired leaning goals and results there are desired leaning goals and results (achievement) for each of learners.(achievement) for each of learners.
Needs for CL in Japanese Needs for CL in Japanese UniversityUniversity
Deepening knowledge, concepts & skills after Deepening knowledge, concepts & skills after lecturinglecturing
Managing research projectsManaging research projects MotivationMotivation Sharing and re-using Knowledge and ResourcesSharing and re-using Knowledge and Resources Assessment by Portfolio of collaborative activitiesAssessment by Portfolio of collaborative activities Challenge a new teaching method for Project Challenge a new teaching method for Project
based Learning and so onbased Learning and so on Reflection by sharing/exchanging ideas, opinionsReflection by sharing/exchanging ideas, opinions Learning efficiencyLearning efficiency
Functions/Tools for CLFunctions/Tools for CL Chat, and Web(CGI)Chat, and Web(CGI) WEB/client-serverWEB/client-server
Cross platform password managmentCross platform password managment Blackboard(whiteboard)/Note…..BBSBlackboard(whiteboard)/Note…..BBS
Collaborative simulation and tools (concept mapping, Collaborative simulation and tools (concept mapping, work-flow diagram, CAD, CASE)work-flow diagram, CAD, CASE)
TV-ConferenceTV-Conference 3D-data viewer(data sharing)3D-data viewer(data sharing) Portfolio and Data sharingPortfolio and Data sharing
Managing/Coordinating CL process with dialogue, Managing/Coordinating CL process with dialogue, documents and datadocuments and data
What is “Collaborative learning”
Figure below (included in N0034) is an example of the typical collaborative learning system. Learners are solving an assignment given by a coach. Through discussions in the collaborative workplace, learners gain “problem solving “ skills in a more effective way than in a personal learning environment (such as the conventional WBT).
(3) question to
new logged-on user
(1)Assignment:circular angle
and triangle
similarity
(4) Draw an additionalline CD ontothe collaborativeworkplace
(5) I think
it ’s enough to certify
congruence between
△ABC and △ CDA
(8) Any questions? (as
you have no prompting)
(7)△ABC is not
congruent with △ CDA
posted by learner B
(9)Discussion
monitoring Instructor/Facilitator
LearningResources
(APIS /Tools)agent
agent (10 ) All learners completedAssignment. Next please.
(2)Certify
∠ ABC =∠ DEC
Communicationtool
Collaborativeworkplace
* Agent: a support program for a real learner
Learner B
Learner A
Learner C
Learner D
(6) Read article
Question Opin Agree Disagree Propose Others
Select
MENU[Q]
[O][D]
[A]
[Q][O]
[A][P][A][O][O][A]
Model Editor
Case Study Case Study “Object Model” editor with Chat tool“Object Model” editor with Chat tool
Case Study – 3
Information Reference Layer
Performance Layer
Dialogue Layer
Digital
Collaborative Workplace
(CWP)
Various Materials for Learning
Personal Workplace n (PWP)
Personal Workplace1 (PWP)…..…..APIs/
Tools
Plug in
The Unified Model of the Collaborative Learning Environment
APIs Tools Chat
Shared Workplace
CollaborativeMemory
Repository
Record of input data and data editing for reusing
Reference and Documentationfor collaborativelearning
Unify collaborative environment logically
The unified environment for collaborative learningThe unified environment for collaborative learning
Learning objectives (Basic knowledge/skill - Meta)Learning objectives (Basic knowledge/skill - Meta) Instructor/facilitator commitmentInstructor/facilitator commitment Role(fixed - turn taking)Role(fixed - turn taking) Members’ profile and group sizeMembers’ profile and group size Collaboration mode( open ended - goal oriented)Collaboration mode( open ended - goal oriented) Structured degree(ex. group norm, Structured degree(ex. group norm,
communication pattern etc.)communication pattern etc.) Utilized/prepared facilities/materialsUtilized/prepared facilities/materials ………………..
Some examples of GOMSome examples of GOM
Panel-1 : Next SpeakerPanel-1 : Next Speaker
Collaborative Learning
Ass.Professor Piet KommersAss.Professor Piet Kommers
Faculty of Educational Science and Technology
University of Twente, The Netherlands
Shared Learning Shared Learning ExperiencesExperiences
Shared Learning Experiences Notational TransferInternal External Exchange
Through Web Through Web CorrespondenceCorrespondence
Collaborative Learning
Learning Effectiveness of Learning Effectiveness of Concept Concept
Mapping in a Computer-Mapping in a Computer-SupportedSupported
Collaborative Problem Solving Collaborative Problem Solving DesignDesign
Shared Learning Shared Learning ExperiencesExperiences
Neli Stoyanova
Piet Kommers
Shared cognition is substantial for Shared cognition is substantial for cognitive construction cognitive construction /reconstruction/reconstruction
HypothesesHypotheses
Concept mapping is an effective tool for mediating computer supported collaboration
Three scenarios for concept Three scenarios for concept mapping mediated group mapping mediated group
interaction interaction
Shared Learning Shared Learning ExperiencesExperiences
• Distributed
• Moderated
• Shared
Distributed cognition: Distributed cognition: is is defined as an extension of the defined as an extension of the internal cognition of the internal cognition of the personality in the outside world personality in the outside world
Shared Learning Shared Learning ExperiencesExperiences
Shared cognition: is building upon the individual inputs in the collaborative process
• Distributed
Members work autonomously, make concept maps that reflect their knowledge, and pass them to their group members. This process is continued until all members reach a common vision of the problem. The thinking process is individual.
Shared Learning Shared Learning ExperiencesExperiences
• Moderated
The interaction is moderated by one central person, who adjusts individual notations until a common group vision is reached. The group members have no direct access to the individual representations of the other members. They negotiate via the moderator.
Shared Learning Shared Learning ExperiencesExperiences
• Shared
Members interact synchronously and try to solve the problem as a group. They share their knowledge in action. Knowledge contributions are perceived as collective knowledge.
Shared Learning Shared Learning ExperiencesExperiences
• Distributed mapping mode Distributed mapping mode .... 2 2 groupsgroups
• Moderated mapping mode Moderated mapping mode .... 1 1 groupgroup
• Shared mapping modeShared mapping mode .... 2 2 groupsgroups
• Control, non-mapping modeControl, non-mapping mode .... 1 1 groupgroup
The control group was The control group was instructed to use the instructed to use the brainstorming method for brainstorming method for their collaborationtheir collaboration
Shared Learning Shared Learning ExperiencesExperiences
Pre-test:Pre-test: Before the experimental session a Before the experimental session a pre-test was conducted as an individual task. pre-test was conducted as an individual task. Students were asked to make a paper and pencil Students were asked to make a paper and pencil concept map representing their personal concept map representing their personal knowledge, vision and understanding of the task.knowledge, vision and understanding of the task.
Shared Learning Shared Learning ExperiencesExperiences
Collaborative experimental session:Collaborative experimental session: Students Students were assigned to the groups and receive written were assigned to the groups and receive written instructions how to proceed their group work. instructions how to proceed their group work.
Post-test: Post-test: In order to capture the individual In order to capture the individual learning outputs after the group work the same learning outputs after the group work the same task as in the pre-test was proposed to the task as in the pre-test was proposed to the students a week after the experimental session. students a week after the experimental session.
Concept map drawn by a Shared groupConcept map drawn by a Shared group
Nederland
Gouda Alkmaar
Verkopen
markt
raspen
soorten
komijne
brie
limburger
parmesaanse
mosarella
edammer
goudse oud
jong
belegen
Productie
f abriek
Stremmen
wei
keurenkloppen
rijpen persen
Kaas
boer
klompen
koe
weiland
gras
melk
witzwart/wit
ton
geiten
geiten
zuiv el
y oghurt
karnemelk
boter
eieren
export
meisje
doek
eten
tosti blokje
prikkertje
v laggetje
boterham
Mosterd Kaasschaaf
eigenschappenlekker
zoutkorst
gaten
geel
oranje
Concept map drawn by a Moderated groupConcept map drawn by a Moderated group
Kaas Soorten kaas
distributie
verkoop
kaasproductie
snijtechniekencursus
marketing
klant
kaasgebruik
reclame
cursus supermarkt
kaasboer
kunst
Shared Learning Shared Learning ExperiencesExperiences
Independent VariablesIndependent Variables
Testing the first hypothesis:Testing the first hypothesis: the use of the use of concept mapping technique in concept mapping technique in collaboration process with two levels – collaboration process with two levels – mapping and control groupsmapping and control groups
Testing the second hypothesis:Testing the second hypothesis: the mode the mode of group interaction with three levelsof group interaction with three levels
DistributedDistributed
ModeratedModerated
SharedShared
Shared Learning Shared Learning ExperiencesExperiences
Learning effectiveness at the level of individual Learning effectiveness at the level of individual student, scored numerically on post-test student, scored numerically on post-test concept mapping productionconcept mapping production
Learning effectiveness as an interaction between Learning effectiveness as an interaction between individual students and group achievements, individual students and group achievements, scored numerically on both individual and group scored numerically on both individual and group outputsoutputs
Learning effectiveness at the level of the group Learning effectiveness at the level of the group as a whole, scored numerically on group as a whole, scored numerically on group concept mapping productionconcept mapping production
Individual Fluency and FlexibilityIndividual Fluency and Flexibility
Mapping groupsControl groups
Nu
mb
er
of
co
nc
ep
ts
30
20
10
0
Total
Level1
Level2
Level3
Level4
Level5+
Enrichment, Knowledge Acquisition and RetentionEnrichment, Knowledge Acquisition and Retention at Group Level at Group Level
Mapping groups Control groups Mea
n no
des
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
Enrichment Knowledge acquisition Retention
Shared Learning Shared Learning ExperiencesExperiences
Mapping students include much more new Mapping students include much more new concepts in their post-test than students of the concepts in their post-test than students of the control groupscontrol groups
(M(Mmap map = 15.71; M= 15.71; Mcontr. contr. = 4.00; F = 4.457, Sig. = 4.00; F = 4.457, Sig.
= .048).= .048).On the criteria On the criteria of individual creativity and of individual creativity and reconfigurationreconfiguration no significant difference was found. no significant difference was found.
Our assumption that the use of concept mapping will Our assumption that the use of concept mapping will provoke in general a high opportunity for individual provoke in general a high opportunity for individual patterns breaking is not confirmed.patterns breaking is not confirmed.
Shared Learning Shared Learning ExperiencesExperiences
The interaction between group The interaction between group work and individual cognitive work and individual cognitive
reconstructionreconstruction
Group-to-individual transfer, that is significantly Group-to-individual transfer, that is significantly higher for mapping groupshigher for mapping groups
(M(Mmap map = 19.71; M= 19.71; Mcontr. contr. = 5.50; F = 3.827, Sig. = 5.50; F = 3.827, Sig.
= .047)= .047)
Individual-to-group transfer, that shows a Individual-to-group transfer, that shows a difference near to the significant in favour of difference near to the significant in favour of mapping groups mapping groups
(M(Mmap map = 11.47; M= 11.47; Mcontr. contr. = 4.50; F = 4.312, Sig. = 4.50; F = 4.312, Sig.
= .052)= .052)
Shared Learning Shared Learning ExperiencesExperiences
In collaborative settings concept mapping is predictive In collaborative settings concept mapping is predictive for a conceptual change and cognitive reconstruction, for a conceptual change and cognitive reconstruction, for acquiring concepts and incorporating them in the for acquiring concepts and incorporating them in the existing cognitive structure as well as for the existing cognitive structure as well as for the reconstruction of the cognition. reconstruction of the cognition. The use of concept mapping makes individual The use of concept mapping makes individual knowledge more explicit and more meaningful for other knowledge more explicit and more meaningful for other group members. It is easier to be communicated, group members. It is easier to be communicated, reflected and elaborated and easier incorporated into reflected and elaborated and easier incorporated into one’s individual cognition. one’s individual cognition.
Concept mapping as a mediating tool is beneficial for Concept mapping as a mediating tool is beneficial for group collaborative learning both at group and at group collaborative learning both at group and at individual level. It promotes establishing a common individual level. It promotes establishing a common reference structure that is a basis for building shared reference structure that is a basis for building shared group cognition. group cognition.
The mode of group interaction influences significantly The mode of group interaction influences significantly the the
concepts fluency (F = 3.827, Sig. = .047) concepts fluency (F = 3.827, Sig. = .047)
and links fluency (F = 3.797, Sig. = .048)and links fluency (F = 3.797, Sig. = .048)
Groups
SharedModeratedDistr ibuted
Nu
mb
er
of
co
nc
ep
ts
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Total
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5+
The mode of group interaction influences significantly The mode of group interaction influences significantly the the
concepts fluency (F = 3.827, Sig. = .047) and concepts fluency (F = 3.827, Sig. = .047) and
links fluency (F = 3.797, Sig. = .048)links fluency (F = 3.797, Sig. = .048)
Groups
Shared Moderated Distributed
Num
ber
of nodes
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
Enrichment
Knowledge acquisition
Retention
The analysis of group learning effectiveness The analysis of group learning effectiveness shows (as expected) a priority of the Shared shows (as expected) a priority of the Shared mode of interaction on the criteria of mode of interaction on the criteria of concepts and links fluency as well as on the concepts and links fluency as well as on the criterion of group creativitycriterion of group creativity
The Moderated groups produce a higher concept fluency The Moderated groups produce a higher concept fluency than the Distributed groups. than the Distributed groups.
It was assumed that the opportunity to review all members’ It was assumed that the opportunity to review all members’ individual maps as an access to a considerable amount of individual maps as an access to a considerable amount of distributed cognitive resources should influence positively distributed cognitive resources should influence positively the broadness of group problem solution. In fact the way the broadness of group problem solution. In fact the way and the form in which individual cognitive resources are and the form in which individual cognitive resources are represented and manipulated in the group interaction is a represented and manipulated in the group interaction is a stronger factor of the group learning effectiveness than the stronger factor of the group learning effectiveness than the amount of distributed resources to which students have amount of distributed resources to which students have accessaccess
The data indicate a great difference in the acquired The data indicate a great difference in the acquired knowledge especially between the Shared and the other knowledge especially between the Shared and the other two types of groups. The broadness of the group vision two types of groups. The broadness of the group vision about the problem is strongly influenced by the mode of about the problem is strongly influenced by the mode of interaction.interaction.
Shared Learning Shared Learning ExperiencesExperiences
No significant difference was found on the No significant difference was found on the criterion of criterion of individual – to - group individual – to - group transfertransfer. All three scenarios enabled . All three scenarios enabled students to present and incorporate their students to present and incorporate their knowledge in the group process.knowledge in the group process.
The data analysis shows that the mode of The data analysis shows that the mode of interaction itself does not influence the interaction itself does not influence the process of eliciting individual knowledge in process of eliciting individual knowledge in group collaboration and its incorporation in group collaboration and its incorporation in the group final output. the group final output.
Shared Learning Shared Learning ExperiencesExperiencesIn summaryIn summary
The experiment reveals that learning effectiveness The experiment reveals that learning effectiveness is influenced significantly by the mode of group is influenced significantly by the mode of group interaction. In general, the Shared interaction interaction. In general, the Shared interaction scenario proves to be the most effective in scenario proves to be the most effective in collaborative learning and problem solving. collaborative learning and problem solving.
This leads to the conclusion that the learning This leads to the conclusion that the learning effectiveness depends on the extent to which effectiveness depends on the extent to which students share their learning not only as results students share their learning not only as results but also as a process of knowledge acquisition and but also as a process of knowledge acquisition and creation by a direct interactioncreation by a direct interaction
Discussion Forum Discussion Forum Review Review
Representation Mode
Mechanics
Peer-to-PeerLearning Objects
ALN Knowledge Management
Learner characteristics
Shared Learning Experiences Notational TransferInternal External Exchange
Collaborative Context–Mediated Experiential Learning Through Asynchronous
Learning Networks