synchronous computer-mediated collaborative activities among collocated students: conditions that...

SYNCHRONOUS COMPUTER-MEDIATED

COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES AMONG

COLLOCATED STUDENTS:

Conditions that make them valuable in every-day

educational practice

SYNCHRONOUS COMPUTER-MEDIATED

COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES AMONG

COLLOCATED STUDENTS:

Conditions that make them valuable in every-day

educational practice

CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005

Argiro Petrou, George Fessakis, Angelique Dimitrakopoulou

Learning Technology and Educational Engineering Laboratory, Department of Education,

University of the Aegean, Greece.

State of the art

Synchronous Computer-Mediated Collaborative Activities

Participants: physically separated

Participants: co-locatedFocus: exploit learning opportunities that are

offered by Computer-mediated

Collaborative Activities in realistic school

context

•Focus: learning outcomes, students’ motivation

for effective collaborative

learning, teachers’ exploitation of new

opportunities (logging traces of interactions as

far as actions and messages is concern).


Purpose of the Research

What are students’ and teachers’ point of view on the learning value of co-located collaborative activities?

Are students motivated to work through this setting?

Is synchronous computer mediated collaborative activities among co-located students, a

valuable and worthwhile activity?

What is the quality of synchronous collaborative activity?


Experimental Conditions (1/4)

ParticipantsFour teachers and sixteen students from three public schools (eight students from K9 grade and eight students from K12 grade).

Classroom conditionsA group of two students and one teacher collaborating using three pcs (OME mode of use).A group of two students without the presence of any adult collaborating using two pcs (OXE mode of use).

Technology based Learning Environment ModellingSpace Tools supporting students e.g. annotated PlaybackTools supporting teachers e.g. Quantitative Overview, CAF, Process Reproduction Tool.

TaskActivities with central theme the basic linear system: y=ax+b, framed with the authentic problem of mobile phone usage’s cost, according to the following script:


COLLOCATED STUDENTS SYNCHRONOUS COLLABORATION SCRIPT

Phase 1 INITIAL INDIVIDUAL PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING.Students solve individually specific instances of the problem using paper and pencil [via students printed activity’sheets]. Individual, with paper & pencil

Phase 2 SYNCHRONOUS COMPUTER MEDIATED COLLABORATION collocated synchronous computer supported collaborative activity [students that are collocated in the same classroom, working on different PCstations, not near each other] with possible supervision, by teacher (computer mediated or not)

Phase 3 GLOBAL GROUP REPORTStudents have to edit a report in order to present the process and the results of their collaborative activity processDuring this phase, students must be supported, by using interactions analysis tools, that provides a readable ‘history’ of their collaborative activity process. side-by side synchronous collaboration in front of the same PC without supervision by teacher

Phase 4 REPORT PRESENTATION IN THE CLASSROOM.During the next lesson, some group of students present their activity report in the classroom and answer other students’ and teacher questions. collective activity in the social level of the class, moderated by the teacher.Teacher Role: Additionally, teacher intervenes to the whole class, or to specific groups after having study the ‘history of collaborative process’ of each group (using and studying information provided by interaction analysis tools).


Experimental Conditions (4/4)

Available timeEach class had 8 sessions of 2x45 minutes (maximum) available for the full set of learning activities implementation. The whole approach lasted about four months.

Data collectionLog files, final computer based collaborative products (models & texts), paper based-activity sheets of students, video & audio recordings of collaborations, students’ & teachers’ questionnaires, panel videos.


Analysis Approach

Quality of synchronous collaborative activity

Project Management

Social Negotiations


Analysis of the quality of synchronous collaborative activity (1/12)

The dialogue structure as theorized for the general script implementation (in case of modelling)

Symbol Meaning

Message. (Messages can be further color coded to depict information like the way a social negotiation begins, ends etc)

‘Project’ management (Planning, scheduling, assignment, auditing)

Social negotiation during model development/ exploitation

Management of Interaction

Technical Problems & User Interface Issues

Social conversation (irrelevant to the project) & Unclassified

t

PHASE1MODEL DEVELOPMENT

PHASE2PROBLEM SOLVING


The hierarchical dialog analysis system (1/4)


PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PLANNING. e.g. [We must construct a model just like the previous activity.]

SCHEDULING. e.g. [First we must construct the model for the second company. Afterwards we are going to produce the diagram]

ASSIGNMENT. e.g. [Set the values for the axes.]

AUDITING. e.g. [Check if you have done all the steps you should.]




SOCIAL NEGOTIATION DURING MODEL DEVELOPMENT

SN-START- REQUEST BY QUESTION. e.g. [What max and min value I should set? They are not given. Should I use random values?]

SN-START-STATEMENT/DECLARATION. e.g. [13 Euro for the standard monthly cost and 0.03Euro for the cost per second].

SN-START-REQUEST BY DISAGREEMENT. e.g. [You didn’t set the right quantities to the axes.]

SN-TERM-COMPROMISE e.g. [O.K. Do it your way.]

SN-TERM-AGREEMENT. e.g. [Very good, Kiriakos. Let’s proceed with the second company. Define again the entities.]




SOCIAL NEGOTIATION DURING MODEL EXPLOITATION

SN-START-STATEMENT-PROPOSITION. e.g. [It is preferable……]

SN-START-REQUEST FOR VERIFICATION/CLARIFICATION. e.g. [The second company is preferable, what do you think? OR What value do you

mean?] ]

SN-TERM-COMPROMISE. e.g. [Well… lets proceed.]

SN-TERM-AGREEMENT. e.g. [Nice!]




MANAGEMENT OF INTERACTION. e.g. [Can you give me the key?].

SOCIAL CONVERSATION (IRRELEVANT TO THE PROJECT). e.g. [Have you read history?]

TECHNICAL PROBLEMS & DIFFICULTIES. e.g. [ The model is

not running. The program stacked!] UNCLASSIFIED. e.g. [……..]


Distribution of Project Management’s messages to

subcategories

Distribution of Project Management’s messages to subcategories per agent

Two students and one teacher collaboratingthrough their own pcs (OME)



Distribution of Project Management’s messages to

subcategories

Distribution of Project Management’s messages to subcategories per agent

Two students collaboratingthrough their own pcs

without teacher participation (OXE)



Discussion about Project Management (1/2)

As far as supervised groups is concerns:


In cases where teachers intervened more distinctively, mostly guiding and scaffolding students, doing more auditing, less planning and even less assignment, students were doing planning and assignments themselves.

In cases where teachers adopted the role of the “leader” doing mostly assignments, students’ collaboration was in existed.


Discussion about Project Management (2/2)

As far as unsupervised groups is concerns, students, in most cases, were actively engaged doing mostly planning and assignments, and hardly any auditing.



Factorial analysis of the beginning and ending modes of Social Negotiations (SN) episodes and agents-teachers&students, that trigger the SN, during model development and model exploitation.

Symmetric Categories Plot (axes F1 and F2: 40,91 %)

USER - ST

USER - T

SN-START-QUESTION

SN-START-DISAGREEMENT

SN - START-STATEMENT

SN -START- HYP_STATEMENT

SN _ START_REQ_HYP_VER

SN_ START_REQ_HYP_CLAR

SN-TERM- COMPROMISE

SN -TERM - AGREEMENT

SN_TERM(EXPL) - COMPROMISE

SN_TERM(EXPL)_AGREEMENT

-2

-1,5

-1

-0,5

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

-1,6 -1,1 -0,6 -0,1 0,4 0,9 1,4 1,9

-- axis F1 (23,36 %) -->

-- a

xis

F2 (

17,5

5 %

) --

>

Two students and one teacher collaborating through their own pcs (OME) (1/2)



Factorial analysis of the beginning and ending modes of Social Negotiations (SN) episodes that were triggered by students during model development and model

exploitation and teacher’s participation to these episodes.


SN-START-QUESTION

SN-START-DISAGREEMENT

SN-START-STATEMENT

SN-START-HYP-STATEMENT

SN-START-REQ-HYP-VER

SN-START-REQ-HYP-CLARIF

SN_TERM - COMPROMISE

SN-TERM- AGREEMENT

SN_TERM(EXPL) - COMPROMISE

SN-TERM(EXPL)-AGREEMENT

TEACHER_PART - 0

TEACHER_PART - 1

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

-1 0 1 2 3

-- axis F1 (22,24 %) -->

-- a

xis

F2

(15,

82 %

) --

>

Two students and one teacher collaborating through their own pcs (OME) (2/2)



Factorial analysis of the beginning and ending modes of Social Negotiations (SN) episodes and agents-students that trigger the SNs, during model development and

model exploitation


AGENT - S-ATHINA

AGENT - S-GIENER

AGENT - S-IGOR

AGENT - S-KONNA

AGENT - S-MARY

AGENT - S-MICHSN-START - QUESTION

SN-START - DISAGREEMENT

SN-START - STATEMENT

SN-START -HYP-STATEMENT

SN-START -REQ-HYP-VER

SN-TERM -COMPROMISE

SN-TERM - AGREEMENT

SN-TERM - NEGOTIATOR

SN-TERM(EXPL) - COMPROMISE

SN-TERM(EXPL) -AGREEMENT1

SN-TERM(EXPL) - NEGOTIATOR

-2,5

-2

-1,5

-1

-0,5

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

-2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5

-- axis F1 (16,33 %) -->

-- a

xis

F2 (

12,7

0 %

) --

>

Two students collaboratingthrough their own pcs without teacher participation (OXE)



Discussion about Social Negotiations’ Episodes

In cases teachers adopted the role of the “leader”, students’ involvement to SN episodes was suppressed.


Teachers triggered most of SN episodes with a statement-declaration.

Teachers’ participation seem to be connected with compromising as termination mode of SN episodes, since usually students adopted their sayings.

Students in both modes were actively engaged in SN episodes, while unlike teachers they triggered most of SN episodes with question or request for explanation/verification.


Analysis of students’ active participation 1/3

Collaborative action diagrams for OME modeof use

Activity 3, 19/01/2004 Magnadramon, Roudoula, Teacher

(Collaboration Activity Function, ICALTS 2004)CoSIL Workshop Genova, 18-20 May, 2005


Collaborative action diagrams for OXE modeof use

Activity 2, 12/12/2003 Athina, Giener



Discussion of students’ motivation from their active participation

Most of the students were actively participating to the learning activity using MS through out the duration of the activity in both modes of use (with or without teacher).

Usually students first collaborated in order to develop the model and after the model development they were mainly chatting reflecting on the model in order to answer the questions in the activity sheet.


Analysis of percentage of off-task messages

The percentage of off-task dialogue messages was usually

(5-10)%, which is characterized rather small in

comparison to face to face collaboration where the oral

dialogue is much more easier to get far from the problem

solving.


Analysis of participants’ point of view on the value of these activities (1/2)

Teachers’ point of view (related to advantages, drawbacks and conditions of SCMCA’s implementation

Question 1: When during the teaching process do you consider that computer supported collaborative problem solving is appropriate be to applied?

In cases teachers can design appropriate activities.

As an alternative way of teaching.

For checking students’ concepts and

misunderstandings


Analysis of participants’ point of view on the value of these activities (2/2)

Teachers’ point of view (related to advantages, drawbacks and conditions of SCMCA’s implementation

Question 2: Are there advantages between computer supported collaborative problem solving and face-to face collaboration, and if yes what are these according to

your opinion?

Students’ dialogues and actions availability

Positive students’ attitude.

Inexistence of off-task messages


Conclusions (1/3)

Concerning the quality of synchronous collaborative

activity

•Most of the students in synchronous collaborative modelling, (via ModellingSpace) were actively engaged, participating in Project Management and Social Negotiations episodes.

•Teachers’ participation varied significantly, affecting as expected the whole collaborative process.


Conclusions (2/3)

Students were highly motivated

•Students participated actively during the whole sessions (actions based analysis over time)

•Students’ off- task messages were less than 10%, in all the cases

•Teachers affirm that almost all of their students were highly concentrated during the sessions, situation difficult to be achieved during traditional courses.


Conclusions (3/3)

Teachers’ opinion was positive

•Students were motivated, something that is proved according to their opinion by the inexistence of off-task messages and students’ positive attitude.

•Unlike to face-to-face collaboration students’ dialogues and actions are available.


Discussion (1/2)

Our findings suggest significant advantages of the approach under certain conditions:

Selection of critical instances related to every day course.


Existence of appropriate interactions’ analysis tools.

Application of appropriate structured scripts.

Appropriate teachers’ interventions.

Discussion (2/2)

Exploitation of significant new aspectsof teachers’ participation with co-located participants

Exploitation of mobile technologies in SCMCAin order to permit a more convenient and integrated

approach in the typical classroom


synchronous computer-mediated collaborative activities among collocated students: conditions that...

Documents