Scaffolding learning activities in real life contexts with collaborative scripts and mobile computers

  • Published on
    18-Nov-2014

  • View
    2.466

  • Download
    1

DESCRIPTION

Scaffolding learning activities in real life contexts with collaborative scripts and mobile computers

Transcript

1. Scaffolding learning activities in real life contexts with collaborative scripts and mobile computers Jari Laru, University of Oulu 25.4.2012 2. Focus of the studyThe general focus of this doctoralthesis is to apply theoretical ideas ofdistributed cognition and scaffoldingfor mobile computer supportedcollaborative learning in authenticcontexts 3. Ill-structured problems in this thesisIll-structured problem solving was acore task in all experiments in thisdoctoral thesis. According to Jonassen(2002) problems can be either well-structured, when there is one clearsolution and solution path, or ill-structured, when there are unclearproblem elements and multiplepossible solutions and solution paths. 4. Theoretical frameworkSirexkat @ Flickr, CC-SA 5. Distributed cognition Distributed-cognition-maggie-nichols.jpg @ http://cyborganthropology.com/ 6. Distributed cognition (Hutchins, 1995;Salomon, 1993) is is a view that cognitiondoes not reside only in persons head,but distributed among people, artifactsand symbols during thinking, reflectionand learning (Salomon, 1993) 7. Social distribution Symbolic distributionPhysical distribution openclipart 8. The concept of cognitive tools is used to refer to any tool thatcan support aspects of learners cognitive processes (Lajoie,1993). Jonassen and Reeves (1996) broadens Lajoies view ofthe term, using it to refer to any tools than enhance thecognitive powers of human beings during thinking, problemsolving, and learning (p.693). Cognitive tool 9. Tools for living vs. tools for learning Tools for Living Tools for LearningType Tools with first-order fingertip Tools with second-order Mindtools (Jonassen, effect (Perkins, 1986) fingertip effect (Perkins, 1996) 186)Definition tools that are used Tools that enhance Tools that engage and spontaneously without higher-order skills facilitate critical chancing basic aspirations, thinking and higher- endeavors, or thinking habits order skills of populationAim Improve productivity and Change our goals and the To make effective use of efficiency ways of thinking the mental efforts of the learnerExamples Eyeglasses, feature phone Handheld calculators Productivity software, expert systems, computer conferences, smartphones, digital learning environments, mobile applications 10. In order to fit world ofPerson-solo distributed cognition wherePerson+ we live and role of mobileFramework devices and applications within it appropriate framework is needed. One fitting approach for this purpose is a distributed view of thinking and learning suggested originally by D. Perkins (1996). 11. Distributed cognitive system Exexutive function F(x) F(x) F(x) F(x)F(x) F(x) Higher-order F(x) Tools for living knowledge F(x) F(x) Tools for learning Scaffolds F(x) Mindtools F(x) F(x) Access craharacteristics Knowledge Person-solo RepresentationsPerson+Artefact RetrievalPerson+Surround Construction 12. Executive function F(X) F(x) F(x) F(x) A system can further be characterized as dependent on F(x) which of its components has the executive function with respect to the task being accomplished. F(x) In the distributed cognition model executive function is distributed by F(x) the nature distributions happen in our surround all the time Person-solo (Perkins, 1993)Person+ArtefactPerson+Surround 13. KnowledgeAccess characteristics Representations Retrieval Construction 14. Collaborative learningCreative Commons 15. Nature of the learning task is one crucial determinant of successfulIll-structured collaboration (Arvaja, Hkkinen,problem solving Etelpelto, & Rasku-Puttonen, 2000). One of the everlastingwas a core task in challenges for instructional designers is to provide real groupall experiments in tasks and contexts that stimulatethis thesis. questioning, explaining and other forms of knowledge articulation (Jrvel, Hkkinen, Arvaja, & Leinonen, 2003). Such challenge is grounded to an idea that the authenticity of the learning situations and tasks is assumed to be an important factor that can facilitate higher order learning (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). 16. Collaboratively usable vs. collaborative suggestion was made to divide tools into the collaboratively usable technology (in which software alone does not scaffold collaboration) and collaborative technology (in which software is designed specifically to support collaborative knowledge construction), based on the instructional and pedagogical aspects of tools (Lipponen & Lallimo, 2004)Cases Collaboratively usable technology Collaborative technologyCase 1: ViMa - FLE3mobileCase 2: Flyer Flyers -Case 3: Edufeed Shozu, Flickr, Wordpress, Google Wikispaces Reader 17. Supporting learning withEmergent technologies 18. The world is entering into the Ageof Mobilism (Norris & Soloway,2011). New technology tools fitmore readily and naturally ourlives; increasingly broad,inexpensive, and easy access toInternet wireless devices, and avariety of Web-based personalpublishing and social softwaretools are making computing truly aubiquitous and continuous partof our lives (Roush, 2005, p.49). 19. Furthermore many researchers have arguedthat educational use of emergent mobiledevices have technological attributes, whichprovide unique technological, social and Affordancespedagogical affordancesType of affordance Roschelle & Pea (2002) Klopfer & Squire (2008) Kiinalainen..Technological leverage topological Connectivity (or physical) space Portability augment physical Context sensitivity space with the information exchangeSocial aggregate individuals Social interactivity participation into group reflection opportunitiesPedagogical Situate teacher as Individuality (provide conductor of activity unique scaffolding) use students actions as artifacts for discussion 20. Evolution of the research on mobilelearning Mobility & PDA(s) Wild(s) Social mobile media Ubiquitous tomorrow Years 1996- 2002- 2009- Type of devices Personal Digital Feature phone, Smartphones Smartphones, Assistant, PocketPC Smartphone Internet tablets, phidgets, tangibles Main type of Infrared Wifi, 2G cellular 3G cellular data 4G --> connectivity data Type of tools Mobile versions of Mobile Mobile clients and Multiple apps desktop software applications internet based cloud services In this thesis Case I Case II Case III - 21. Scafffoldingwebb-zahn @ Flickr, CC-SA 22. The fact that students nowadaysmake use of different electronicdevices, which are availableubiquitously and they are calleddigital natives doesnt make themgood users of the media they havetheir disposal. In other words, Perkins (1993) andSalomon (1993) argue that learnersdo not automatically know how totake appropriate and measuredadvantage of computer tools wheninvolved in cognitive activities withthem. 23. Interlearn (2005) Scaffolding 1/2 The concept of scaffolding was first introduced by Wood, Bruner & Ross (1976) in order to define what kind of instructional processes enables novices to carry out tasks that are beyond their unassisted efforts, thus helping them achieve independent task competence. The theoretical foundation of scaffolding comes from ideas concerning the zone of proximal development (ZPD) and sociocultural perspective (Vygotsky, 1986; Wertch, 1998). Scaffolding techniques have been used successfully in a number of desktop tools (Quintana, Reiser, Davis, Krajcik, Fretz, Duncan, Kyza, Edelson, Soloway, 2004) jari.laru@oulu.fi 23 24. Interlearn (2005) (distributed) Scaffolding 2/2 Puntembekar & Kolodner (1998) have argud that models of individual scaffolding are not necessarily applicaple to educational settings in which a group of learners is pursuing a common goal. Other up-to-date notions on scaffolding emphasize that it can take a variety of forms - it can be extended to cover physical artifacts and representations, which can serve as cognitive tools that mediate action (Palincsar, 1998; Wertch, 1998), but also to consider peers and social roles as scaffolding agents (Tabak, 2004; Puntembakar & Kolodner, 1998). =>Puntembekar & Kolodnner (1998) have coined the term distributed scaffolding to refer to such instructional designs that sequence and integrate a variety of social and material supports. jari.laru@oulu.fi 24 25. Collaborative scripts With respect to challenges in collaborative learning, Kollar, Fischer & Hesse (2006) have distinguished two classes of scaffolds: A) scaffolds that provide support on a conceptual level (microscript) B) scaffolds that provide support concerning interactive processes between the collaborators (macroscript) Especially in CSCL such scaffolds have been called collaboration scripts (Fischer et. al, 2007; MOSIL, 2004) 26. Challenging concept of 27. Concept of fading reveals to be problematic! Pea (2004) suggested that scaffolds that do not incorporate fading are actually a part of distributed cognition, or the division of an overall cognitive task into subtasks that can be completed by different people or tools (Hutchins, 1995). Fading is not possible at all with its original meaning in computer mediated contexts (Belland, 2011) 28. Scaffolds as a part of distributed cognitionScripts can be examined through the metaphorof distributed cognition which have been arguedto appropriately to apply computer-basedscaffolding: because the latter do no notsimply, but fundamentally change the nature ofcognition (Kollar, Fischer & Hesse, 2006; Belland,2011) 29. Distributed Scaffoldingcognition Distributed scaffolding Scaffolding in the context of Distributed cognitive system Microscripts Macroscripts Integrated learning scripts Collaborative learning activities 30. Challenging concept of 31. Distributed cognitive system Exexutive function F(x) F(x) F(x) F(x)F(x) F(x) Higher-order F(x) Tools for living Controlling agent knowledge (in this case its external CL script) F(x) F(x) Tools for learning Scaffolds F(X) F(x) Mindtools F(x) Removal Internal CL script ag F(x) Access craharacteristics Knowledge Person-solo RepresentationsPerson+Artefact RetrievalPerson+Surround Construction 32. External script Emergent interaction pattern(s)Team+ External script Task(s) Degree of congruency C A Integrated learning script (macroscript) B Group members Microscript Microscript Microscript Person+ Person+ Person+ Internal script Internal script Internal script Person-solo Person-solo Person-solo A B C 33. Script as method In this thesis script is considered as method to be used during activities in different case studies, not as a pedagogical objective, with goal to be internalized for the future However, when script is a method, the internal script is instrumental to play well the external script (each students construct some internal script that will to some extent be different from the external script) (Dillenbourg & Jermann, 2006 34. Didactic envelope (macroscripting)In MOSIL project dillenbourg et. Al (2004) expanded the scope ofcollaboration scripts presented by Dillebourg (2002) to encompassmore than just small group interaction by introducing concept ofdidactic envelope: we discriminate the core script from itsdidactic envelope, i.e. a set of pre- and post-structuring activities(p.13). Such structuring activities (e.g. introducing thetopic, reflecting on what what was discussed, etc.) allow triggeringthe core mechanisms and enable scripts to be optimally integratedinto the lesson plan and are an essential part of macroscripting(Dillenbourg & Jermann, 2006; Dillenbourg & Tchounikine, 2005). 35. Disturbing collaboration: swishDillenbourg & Hong (2008) have termed their approach fordisturbing collaboration as Split Where Interaction ShouldHappen (SWISH). They summarize it by using three axioms:1. Learning is result from interactions in which learners have to engage in order to compensate split introduced by macroscript, i.e constructing shared solution based on materials gained during individual reflections (case study III in this thesis).2. The nature of split thus determines the nature of interactions. Interactions are mechanisms for overcoming task splits3. The splits can therefore in reverse engineering- be designed to trigger the very interactions that the designer wants to foster 36. Learning context Pedagogical design Macroscript Internal script Internal script Microscript nPerson-solo Person-solo Internal script Microscript n+1 Internal scriptPerson-solo Person-solo Person-solo Person+ / team+ 37. Learning designPoitinjimmie @ Flickr, CC-SA 38. Aims of the study I/IIThe general focus of this doctoralthesis is to apply theoretical ideas ofdistributed cognition and scaffoldingfor mobile computer supportedcollaborative learning in authenticcontexts 39. Aims of the study II/II The first aim was to analyze the nature of collaboration in the mobile technology supported settings of collaborative learning (papers I and III-IV) and work (paper II) The second aim was to experiment the kind of scaffolding of mobile computer supported collaboration that can enrich collaborative learning (papers I,III-IV) and work (paper II) The third aim was to discuss the methodological issues for studying social interactions and collaborative learning in mobile computer supported activities (I-IV) 40. Research designThe research design combineschracteristics from the designbased research (DBR), Case-study approach (Yin, 2003) andsituated approach (Greeno,2006) 41. Theory Inquiry learning Case III Argumentative learning Paper III Instructional design Case II Instructional design Core activity 2nd analysis Main methods Core activity Blended learning EI Results & findings 1st analysis Argumentative inquiry Mann Whitney U-test Script learning Data Script Integrated learning script Qualitative content analysis Flyers, audio recordings, mindmaps Integrated learning script Context Context Macro: Storyboard + tutors Mobile tool Higher Education Flyers Fieldtrip (K12) Micro: Sentence openers Data Tools Log Mobile tool data, recordings, knowledge test, wiki history, content Case I Media uploader 2nd analysis Paper II Results & findings Google Reader Main methods 1st analysis Social software (students) Social network analysis 1st analysis Instructional design Media sharing Data 2nd analysis Weblog Qualitative content Logs, interviews, Core activity Wiki analysis questionnaires RSS Reader Knowledge building Paper IV Context Social software (class) Mobile tool Script Virtual masters Course blog Main methods FLE3mobile Macro: Free collaboration Course wiki programme Micro: sentence openers RSS aggregats Qualitative content analysis (mixed) Theory Bayesian modeling FLE3 Tiernajack Progressive inquiry learning Flyers SmartLibrary Knowledge building Preliminary TheoryPaper I analysis Theory (analytical lens) Foundations Community of Practise 42. Laru, J. & Jrvel, S. (2008). Social patterns in mobiletechnology mediated collaboration among members of theprofessional distance education community. EducationalMedia International Journal, 45(1),17-3. 43. Results Interviews Content analysisstimulus Social network analysis Log-files Matrices (SNA) Database 44. Overall, the analyses revealed nonparticipative behaviour within the onlinecommunity. The social network analysis revealed structural holes and sparse collaborationamong participants in the offline community. It was found that due to theirseparated practices in the offline community, they didnt have a need for mobilecollaboration tools in their practices. 45. STUDY 2: FLYERS Laru, J. & Jrvel, S. (2008). Social patterns in mobile technology mediated collaboration among members of the professional distance education community. Educational Media International Journal, 45(1),17-3. 46. Results Mindmap Pre-test Top-performers Audio recordings ofargumentative discussions Mindmap analysis Content analysis Mann-Whitney U-testKnowledge claim messages Low performers Mindmap Post-test 47. Although the results revealed several shortcomings in the types ofargumentation....In general, the use of the mobile tool likely promoted importantinteraction during inquiry learning, but led to superficialepistemological quality in the knowledge claim messages. 48. Course blog and wiki Mobile applications Course level tools D. Reflect & E. Review & B.Reflect F. Co-construct Phase: A.Ground C.Conceptualize elaborate evaluate knowledge Course feed Group level tools Software: Collaborative Solo Collaborative Activity: Lecture Discussion Phototaking Blogging Discussion Wikiwork Multiple feeds Merged feeds Monitoring tools G.Monitor Tools used to merge multiple RSS feedsFigure 4. Socio-technological design of the course. The idea of making use of each othersknowledge was operationalized in socio-technical design. It consisted of recurrent individual and collective phases in which studentsused multiple Web 2.0 tools and mobile phones in concert to perform designed tasks. Retrieved from: Jari Laru, Piia Nykki, SannaJrvel, Supporting small-group learning using multiple Web 2.0 tools: A case study in the higher education context, The Internet andHigher Education, Available online 28 August 2011, ISSN 1096-7516, 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.004. 49. Figure 5. Pedagogical design of the course. Groups were required to complete a wiki projectby the end of the semester. In order to complete the wiki project, students needed toparticipate in recurrent solo and collective phases mediated by the use of social softwaretools and face-to-face discussions in their respective phases. Jari Laru, Piia Nykki, SannaJrvel, Supporting small-group learning using multiple Web 2.0 tools: A case study in thehigher education context, The Internet and Higher Education, Available online 28 August2011, ISSN 1096-7516, 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.004. 50. Conceptual Conceptual knowledge post- knowledge post- test test Knowledge test analysis Results Paired samples t-test Normalized Bayesian dependency & classification learning gain modeling Descriptive analysis Analysis of Wiki historyAnalysis of the On task analysis engagement Discussions Shozu Flickr Wordpress Wikispaces Google Reader 51. In our case, we found that using social software tools together to perform multipletasks likely increased individual knowledge acquisition during the course.Bayesian classification analysis revealed that the best predictors of good learningoutcomes were wiki-related activities. 52. Results 53. Overall, the analyses revealed nonparticipative behaviour within the onlinecommunity. The social network analysis revealed structural holes and sparse collaborationamong participants in the offline community. It was found that due to theirseparated practices in the offline community, they didnt have a need for mobilecollaboration tools in their practices. 54. Single task, free collaboration Existing masters programs New masters program Knowledge building activity Microscript Collective task 55. Internal script External script Internal script(s) Activity: Collaborative knowledge building (progressive inquiry learning) Nonparticipative behaviorCo-operative learning Microscript: Knowledge building Self-study ag Activity: Argumentative knowledge construction - Integrated learning script - Emergent interaction pattern(s) prestructuring Core activity Post structuring ag Activities: Conceptualizations, reflections, elaborations, knowledge construction CSCL Integrated learning script CSCL Emergent interaction pattern(s) ag prestructuring SWISH Core activity ag Post structuring ag 56. Although the results revealed several shortcomings in the types ofargumentation....In general, the use of the mobile tool likely promoted importantinteraction during inquiry learning, but led to superficialepistemological quality in the knowledge claim messages. 57. Three independent tasks + didactic envelope Microscript Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 MacroscriptCollective activities Small-group activities Storyboard Argumentative discussions Conclusive discussion Review and comparison 58. Internal script External script Internal script(s) Activity: Collaborative knowledge building (progressive inquiry learning) Nonparticipative behaviorCo-operative learning Microscript: Knowledge building Self-study ag Activity: Argumentative knowledge construction - Integrated learning script - Emergent interaction pattern(s) prestructuring Core activity Post structuring ag Activities: Conceptualizations, reflections, elaborations, knowledge construction CSCL Integrated learning script CSCL Emergent interaction pattern(s) ag prestructuring SWISH Core activity ag Post structuring ag 59. In our case, we found that using social software tools together to perform multipletasks likely increased individual knowledge acquisition during the course.Bayesian classification analysis revealed that the best predictors of good learningoutcomes were wiki-related activities. 60. Separated tasks w integrated subtasks + Swish 1st topic 2nd topic 3rd topic Micro S1 Micro S2Macro Micro S3 Core activity Micro S4 Micro S5 Collective activities Small-group activities Individual activities Collaboration script Grounding (Lecture) Reflect (Discussion) Conceptualize (Photo [mobile]) Micro Sn = Microscript n Macro = Macroscript Review and evaluate Reflect and elaborate (Blog) (Discussion) Co-construct of knowledge Monitor (RSS [mobile]) (Wiki) 61. Internal script External script Internal script(s) Activity: Collaborative knowledge building (progressive inquiry learning) Nonparticipative behaviorCo-operative learning Microscript: Knowledge building Self-study ag Activity: Argumentative knowledge construction - Integrated learning script - Emergent interaction pattern(s) prestructuring Core activity Post structuring ag Activities: Conceptualizations, reflections, elab orations, knowledge construction CSCL Integrated learning script CSCL Emergent interaction pattern(s) ag prestructuring SWISH Core activity ag Post structuring ag 62. Distributed cognitive system Exexutive function F(x) F(x) F(x) F(x)F(x) F(x) Higher-order F(x) Tools for living Controlling agent knowledge (in this case its external CL script) F(x) F(x) Tools for learning Scaffolds F(X) F(x) Mindtools F(x) Removal Internal CL script ag F(x) Access craharacteristics Knowledge Person-solo RepresentationsPerson+Artefact RetrievalPerson+Surround Construction 63. Comparison between experiments Subtask Topic 1 Subtask n n+1 Topic 1 Subtask Topic 2 Subtask n n+1 X Subtask Topic 3 Subtask n Topic Topic 2 n+1 Subtask Topic 1 Subtask n X n+1 Topic 3 Subtask Topic 2 Subtask n n+1 Subtask Topic 3 Subtask n n+1 Free Didactic envelopes (Dillenbourg, 2002) Swish splits (Dillenbourg & Jermann, 2006) 64. ConclusionSimple tools, richpedagogical practises(Roschelle, 2002) 65. Kussakin osatutkimuksessa kytettiin parhaita menetelmi Design tutkimus vs. Case study.. => Menetelmt kehittyivt monipuolisemmiksi ja tarkemmiksi.. Voisikos niit selitt ilmin kehittymisell, menetelmien kehittymisell.. Kontekstien muuttuessa kollaboraatio voi muuttua.. Oletko ottanut huomioon..

Recommended

View more >