Socially Shared Metacognition in CSCL Planning
-
Upload
mariel-miller -
Category
Education
-
view
1.320 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Socially Shared Metacognition in CSCL Planning
Socially Shared Metacognition:Convergence & Divergence in CSCL
Planning
Allyson Fiona Hadwin, Mariel Miller, Elizabeth WebsterUniversity of Victoria, BC, Canada
Philip H. WinneSimon Fraser University, BC, Canada
University of Victoria Technology Integration & Evaluation Research Lab
Research was funded by a SSHRC Standard Research Grant 410-2008-0700 (A. Hadwin)
1
Socially Shared Metacognition:Convergence & Divergence in CSCL Planning
Purpose:
Explore theory driven methods for measuring socially shared regulation in collaborative tasks
Objectives
Define socially shared regulation (SSRL)
Introduce SSRL Negotiation Index for scoring aspects of socially shared regulated learning in collaborative tasks
Test viabiliy of this index on test cases representing different patterns of SSRL
Pilot index in four cases of group planning in an undergraduate collaborative task
2
What is Collaboration?
Coordinated and mutually interdependent work Moving toward a shared goal - joint task Leverages individual’s unique & distributed
knowledge/expertise Achieves something beyond what any individual could
achieve alone
(Dillenbourg, 1999; Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Rochelle & Teasley, 1995, etc)
3
Theoretically Successful Collaboration Involves
4
CORLSRL
SSRL
CoRL
Self-Regulated Learning (SRL)
Each team member regulates his/her strategic
engagement
Socially Shared Regulation (SSRL)Interdependent or
collective regulation of group processes and
successful coordination of strategies
Builds on Winne & Hadwin, 1998 model of SRL
Planning involves:5
Phase 1: Developing task perceptionsWhat & Why
Phase 2: Constructing Goals/Standards
Students SRLBy constructing
These perceptions & goals
Students SSRLBy negotiating perceptions &
goals
Theoretically,Planning (Task perceptions & Goals) should...
Set students up for regulatory success Create standards for monitoring and regulating
collaboration Leverage distributed expertise Extend distributed expertise
6
Example Task PerceptionThe purpose of this collaborative writing assignment is…
Negotiated Team Perception• use what we have learned in the course so far• construct thesis statement• incorporate logical arguments• learn to collaborate as a group
Student 2a. use what we have learned in the coursec. Incorporate logical arguments
Student 3a. use what we have learned in the coursee. Justify with clear examples
Student 1a. use what we have learned in the courseb. Construct thesis statement
7
Evaluating SSRL
Negotiated Team Perception• use what we have learned in the course so far• construct thesis statement• incorporate logical arguments• learn to collaborate as a group
Student 2a. use what we have learned in the coursec. Incorporate logical arguments
Student 3a. use what we have learned in the coursee. Justify with clear examples
Student 1a. use what we have learned in the courseb. Construct thesis statement
8
Convergence# of idea units in individuals’ perceptions that teams include in the
shared group perception via negotiation
Evaluating SSRL9
Negotiated Team Perception• use what we have learned in the course so far• construct thesis statement• incorporate logical arguments• learn to collaborate as a group
Student 2a. use what we have learned in the coursec. Incorporate logical arguments
Student 3a. use what we have learned in the coursee. Justify with clear examples
Student 1a. use what we have learned in the courseb. Construct thesis statement
Divergence# of idea units in individuals’ answers not included in teams’ shared
perceptions and not included in the negotiation process
Evaluating SSRL10
Negotiated Team Perception• use what we have learned in the course so far• construct thesis statement• incorporate logical arguments• learn to collaborate as a group
Student 2a. use what we have learned in the coursec. Incorporate logical arguments
Student 3a. use what we have learned in the coursee. Justify with clear examples
Student 1a. use what we have learned in the courseb. Construct thesis statement
Emergence# of idea units in team shared perceptions that appear during
negotiation and are not included individuals’ perceptions
SSRL Negotiation Index
C - D N
+( ) E
KNumber of idea units in shared team perceptions
Emergence = Σ idea units in team shared perceptions that appear during negotiation and are not included individuals’ perceptions
Divergence = Σ idea units in individuals’ answers not included in teams’ shared perceptions and not included in the negotiation process
Convergence = Σ idea units in individuals’ perceptions that teams include in the shared group perception via negotiation
Number of team members
11
We hypothesize that…
Low SSRL NegotationIndex for Task Perceptions
Low SSRL Negotiation Index for
Team goals
Limited opportunities for Monitoring, evaluating &
regulating team strategies
Weaker Team Task Performance
12
Negotiation Index: Theoretical Examples
Team Response
Member 1
Member 2
Member 3
A abcde abcde abcde
A b c d
ABD abcde abde abcde
AB c d e
ABCD ab cd ad
ABCDE a b c
ABCD abcd ab cd
ABDE abe ab abcde
ABDE abde abde abde
ABCDE abcde abcde abcde
ABCDE abd abd abd
EmergenceDivergenceConvergence
13
11 theoretical examples of individual vs. group responses in SSRL planning
Each letter represents 1 idea unit
Negotiation Index: Theoretical Example14
EmergenceDivergenceConvergence
Team Response
Member 1
Member 2
Member 3
CON
A abcde abcde abcde 1+1+1
A b c d 0
ABD abcde abde abcde 3+3+3
AB c d e 0
ABCD ab cd ad 2+2+2
ABCDE a b c 1+1+1
ABCD abcd ab cd 4+2+2
ABDE abe ab abcde 3+2+4
ABDE abde abde abde 4+4+4
ABCDE abcde abcde abcde 5+5+5
ABCDE abd abd abd 3+3+3
Negotiation Index: Theoretical Example15
EmergenceDivergenceConvergence
Team Response
Member 1
Member 2
Member 3
CON DIV
A abcde abcde abcde 1+1+1 4+4+4
A b c d 0 1+1+1
ABD abcde abde abcde 3+3+3 2+1+2
AB c d e 0 1+1+1
ABCD ab cd ad 2+2+2 0
ABCDE a b c 1+1+1 0
ABCD abcd ab cd 4+2+2 0
ABDE abe ab abcde 3+2+4 1
ABDE abde abde abde 4+4+4 0
ABCDE abcde abcde abcde 5+5+5 0
ABCDE abd abd abd 3+3+3 0
Negotiation Index: Theoretical Example16
EmergenceDivergenceConvergence
Team Response
Member 1
Member 2
Member 3
CON DIV EMER
A abcde abcde abcde 1+1+1 4+4+4 0
A b c d 0 1+1+1 1
ABD abcde abde abcde 3+3+3 2+1+2 0
AB c d e 0 1+1+1 2
ABCD ab cd ad 2+2+2 0 0
ABCDE a b c 1+1+1 0 2
ABCD abcd ab cd 4+2+2 0 0
ABDE abe ab abcde 3+2+4 1 0
ABDE abde abde abde 4+4+4 0 0
ABCDE abcde abcde abcde 5+5+5 0 0
ABCDE abd abd abd 3+3+3 0 2
Negotiation Index: Theoretical Example17
EmergenceDivergenceConvergence
Team Response
Member 1
Member 2
Member 3
CON DIV EMER Index
A abcde abcde abcde 1+1+1 4+4+4 0 -3.00
A b c d 0 1+1+1 1 0.00
ABD abcde abde abcde 3+3+3 2+1+2 0 0.44
AB c d e 0 1+1+1 2 0.50
ABCD ab cd ad 2+2+2 0 0 0.50
ABCDE a b c 1+1+1 0 2 0.60
ABCD abcd ab cd 4+2+2 0 0 0.67
ABDE abe ab abcde 3+2+4 1 0 0.75
ABDE abde abde abde 4+4+4 0 0 0.92
ABCDE abcde abcde abcde 5+5+5 0 0 1.00
ABCDE abd abd abd 3+3+3 0 2 1.00
Now lets look at a real case example
Research Context Undergraduate course (ED-D 101) support students in
becoming self-regulated learners. Coursework included Major Collaborative Assignments
Strategy Library Assignment: Co-construct 5 strategies, justify with course concepts, experiment & evaluate strategies in real learning activities
18
Participants
12 undergraduate students (ED-D 101) 7 male, 5 female; Mean age = 19.2; SD = 2.02 4 collaborative course assignment groups (n=3)
19
Personal Planning Tool (PPT) Shared Planning Tool (SPT)
Individual Planning Collaborative task What are we being asked to do? What is the purpose of this
assignment? What is my goal for this assignment
Measures & Data Collection
Team Planning for current collaborative task What are we being asked to do? What is the purpose of this
assignment? What is our goal for this assignment
20
SSRL negotiation index
Profiles of strengths and weaknesses within a group in terms of their negotiation of shared regulation
Overall these index scores were good (all positive)
What?
SSRL –TP
Index
Why?
SSRL-TP Index
Goals
SSRL Index
Total
Planning
Index
Task Performance
(100)
Team 1 .91 .83 .83 2.57 90.0
Team 2 1.00 .67 .50 2.17 68.52
Team 3 .92 .91 1.00 2.83 81.48
Team 4 .78 .67 .78 2.23 46.29
Table 1. SSRL negotiation scores and task performance for each group
21
Team negotiation of Task Purpose Perceptions
22
Group Response
Member 1
Member 2
Member 3
CON DIV EMER Index
1 ABCD abc bcd abcd 4+3+4 0+0+0 0 .833
2 ABCD bc bc abcd 2+2+4 0+0+0 0 .667
3 ABCD abcd abc abcd 4+3+4 0+0+0 0 .917
4 ABCD bc bd abcd 2+2+4 0+0+0 0 .667
EmergenceDivergenceConvergence
Strong positive negotiation scores occur when there is high convergence (and/or emergence) and an absence of divergence from individual to shared perceptions
All 4 groups converge on the same task perception, Within groups there was distributed TP expertise each member brought
to team negotiations
Task Perceptions:–Team 1Why are you being asked to do this?
A Build collaboration skills & knowledge
B Learn new strategiesC Apply strategies to real
learning• Monitor & Evaluate
strategies
Con = 10 Div = 0 Em = 0 SSRL = .833
a-b-c-d
a-b-c
b-c-d
Member 1
Member 2
Member 3
Team Response
The purpose for this assignment is to engage us in the what we have learned in the course thus far, and use these techniques to construct our own strategies that may be more specific to our ways of learning. It will help us to work collaboratively as a group, as well as help us in other courses and future academic success by using these strategies.
The purpose of this assignment is to encourage us to construct our own learning strategies, test them out, choose between multiple ones and find the one that works best for us, and then apply what we have learned into our school work and improve our learning experience as a whole.
I am being asked to do this assignment so that I can learn to collaborate more effectively within a group. By coming up with my own learning strategies, I am broadening my understanding of basic learning strategies, and more apt to apply them effectively to my own life. Also, I can develop my skills of systematically weighing the pros and cons of each learning strategy to deem it effective or not.
23
Team negotiation of task goals24
Group Response
Member 1
Member 2
Member 3
CON DIV EMER Index
1 ABCE ce ce cdef 2+2+2 0+0+2 2 .83
2 BCEG c bc ceg 1+2+3 0+0+0 0 .50
3 CE ce ce ce 2+2+2 0+0+0 0 1.00
4 CDE ce ce cde 2+2+3 0+0+0 0 .78
EmergenceDivergenceConvergence
Strong positive negotiation scores occur when there is high convergence (and/or emergence) and an absence of divergence from individual to shared perceptions
Breadth of idea units in negotiated team goals varies greatly
Task Goal – Team 2
B. Good grade/ Good Assignment
C. Learn new strategiesE. Experiment /try
strategies strategiesG. Find/create strategies
that work for others
c-e-g
c
b-c
Member 1
Member 2
Member 3
Team Response
I want to learn the best way for me to prepare for tests. Furthermore, I tend find my self cramming for an exam. So, not having to do that and learn how to properly schedule my preparation.
I want to be able to identify different learning strategies and be able to know which situations best fit which strategy. I also want to be able to create a solid sample scenario with my group mates.
From this assignment I want to come up with a great strategy that suit me very well also very effective. In this way, I will know what kind of strategy is best for me and what is not working. Hopefully, the strategy that I find is also effective to others too so that other people can be benefit by using my strategy.
25
Con = 6 Div = 0 Em = 0 SSRL = .50
What is the value of the negotiation index?
Our approach to studying SSRL acknowledges that successful collaborative work involves productively regulating across all 3 forms of regulation (self-regulation, co-regulation, and shared regulation)
Although results are preliminary, SSRL Negotiation Index offers one method of capturing dynamic process of becoming a team Negotiating consensus & co-constructing shared
metacognitive knowledge for the task amongst individuals in a group
Degree to which groups co-construct shared metacognitive planning knowledge may vary in terms of convergence, divergence, emergence
26
What is the value of the negotiation index?
Potential to identify areas of shared-regulation strength and weakness within a group
Trigger design of supports and scripts to help groups refine regulation in those weaker regulatory areas.
27
What is missing?
The index does not account for Accuracy and completeness of negotiated task perceptions Quality of team goal
For example, in the table below, teams identified 3-4 key ideas about the task requirements, however, there were actually 5 key ideas expressed by the teacher
28
Group Response
Member 1
Member 2
Member 3
CON DIV EMER Index
1 ABCD abcd abc abcd 4+3+4 0+0+0 0 .917
2 ABCD abcd abcd abcd 4+4+4 0+0+0 0 1.00
3 ABCD abcd abc abcd 4+3+4 0+0+0 0 .917
4 ABC ab ab abc 2+2+3 0+0+0 0 .778
…What is missing?
Treats all divergent ideas as “negative”. What about ideas that are discussed and negotiated to be dropped by the team?
To distinguish those “false divergent” ideas you need to examine the team’s negotiation dialogue
Did the individual not share the idea (divergence) Did they discuss and decide to exclude the idea as a team (a type
of convergence)
29
Future Directions
Validation of SSRL Negotiation Index Larger sample, variety of task contexts Multiple data sources (including chat records) Relationship to factors such as collaborative
challenges, quality of task enactment and performance, change over time
30