cscl scenarios based on combinations of cl flow patterns : a case study

CSCL Scenarios based on CSCL Scenarios based on CombinationsCombinations of CL Flow of CL Flow PatternsPatterns: A Case Study: A Case Study

Davinia Hernández-LeoDavinia Hernández-LeoGSIC / EMIC groupGSIC / EMIC group

University of Valladolid, SpainUniversity of Valladolid, Spain

OTEC, OUNL

Heerlen, 13th June 2006 http://gsic.tel.uva.es

2

IntroductionIntroduction

Collaborative Learning Flow Patterns (CLFPs)Collaborative Learning Flow Patterns (CLFPs)

Combining CLFPsCombining CLFPs

Case Study: Implementing a CSCL scenario Case Study: Implementing a CSCL scenario

based on a combination of three CLFPsbased on a combination of three CLFPs

Conclusions and discussionConclusions and discussion

ContentsContents

3

IntroductionIntroduction (I) (I)

CSCLCSCL

Computer-Supported Collaborative LearningComputer-Supported Collaborative Learning Social interactions as key element for learningSocial interactions as key element for learning

4

Introduction (II)Introduction (II)

CSCL CSCL ScenariosScenarios Dynamic Learning ScenariosDynamic Learning Scenarios

Need for: Need for: Flexible customizable

designs of collaborative learning situations

Unfocused activities and free collaboration Unfocused activities and free collaboration does not necessarily produce learningdoes not necessarily produce learning Need for: Need for:

Effective structured designs of collaborative learning situations

5

Introduction (III)Introduction (III)

Promote productive interactions that enhance the Promote productive interactions that enhance the effectivenesseffectiveness of collaborative learning activities of collaborative learning activities

Existing approachesExisting approaches Specific tools designed to structure collaboration Specific tools designed to structure collaboration

(e. g. structured dialogue interfaces)(e. g. structured dialogue interfaces) Collaboration scriptsCollaboration scripts interpreted by a Learning interpreted by a Learning

Management System (LMS)Management System (LMS)

LevelsLevels Activity level (macro): Collaborative Activity level (macro): Collaborative learning flowlearning flow, i.e., , i.e.,

sequence of activities that make up a learning processsequence of activities that make up a learning process Action level (micro): Detailed learning actions within an Action level (micro): Detailed learning actions within an

activityactivity

6

ContentsContents


Collaborative Learning Flow PatternsCollaborative Learning Flow Patterns





7

CL Flow Patterns (I)CL Flow Patterns (I)

Collection and formulation of

Broadly accepted techniques repetitively used by practitioners (best /good practices) when structuring the flow of types of CL activities

as patterns for the design of (potentially effective) CSCL scenarios (scripts)

so that they can be reused in

different situations / content / disciplines (particularized according to their concrete necessities)

8

CL Flow Patterns (II)CL Flow Patterns (II)

".... Each pattern describes a problem which occurs over and over again in our environment, and then describes the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice“

(Alexander et al., 1977)

9

… SCRIPTED Collaborative Learning…

This pattern gives the collaborative learning flow for a context in which several participants face the collaborative resolution of the same problem

***

The collaborative learning flow must enable the resolution of a complex problem/task, usually without a concrete solution, whose resolution implies the achievement of gradual consensus among all the participants

(related “larger” patterns)

CONTEXT

PROBLEM

CL Flow Patterns (III)CL Flow Patterns (III)

Pyramid CLFP (1)Pyramid CLFP (1)

10


(E.g.) To promote the feeling team members need each other to succeed (positive interdependence)

Medium-risk: some experience in collaborative learning is required

Each participant studies the problem and proposes a solution. Groups (usually pairs) compare and discuss their proposals and, finally propose a new shared solution. These groups join in larger groups in order to generate new agreed proposals. At the end, all the participants must propose a final and agreed solution.

SOLUTION

(educational objectives)

(complexity)

CL Flow Patterns (IV)CL Flow Patterns (IV)

11


(diagramrepresentingthe solution)

Individual or initial group

Teacher

PHASE N: Propose a final

and agreed solutionPHASE i:

Compare, discuss and propose a shared solution

PHASE 1: Individual (or initial group) study of the

problem. Proposes a

solution

CL Flow Patterns (V)CL Flow Patterns (V)

12


***

(E.g.) Each level of the Pyramid (except level N) can be structured according to Jigsaw CLFP

Particularization into a script:

(E.g.) During particularization the number of the Pyramid levels should be determined

(related patterns)

(recommendations for

particularization / customization,

instantiation and execution)

CL Flow Patterns (VI)CL Flow Patterns (VI)

13


Agree on common conclusions about a

paper

Davis, W. A. (2002). A comparison of pyramids versus brainstorming in a problem based learning environment. In Focusing on the Student. Proceedings of the 11th Annual Teaching Learning Forum. Perth: Edith Cowan University.

Gibbs, G. (1995) Teaching more students 3: Discussion with more students. The Oxford Centre for Staff Development, Headington, Oxford.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1999). Learning together and alone: cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning. (5th ed.) Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

…

(example)

(references)

CL Flow Patterns (VII)CL Flow Patterns (VII)

14

Jigsaw CLFP (1)Jigsaw CLFP (1)

… SCRIPTED Collaborative Learning…

This pattern gives the collaborative learning flow for a context in which several small groups are facing the study of a lot of information for the resolution of the same problem.

***

The collaborative learning flow must enable the resolution of a complex problem/task that can be easily divided into sections or independent sub-problems

(related “larger” patterns)

CONTEXT

PROBLEM

CL Flow Patterns (VIII)CL Flow Patterns (VIII)

15


(E.g.) To promote the feeling team members need each other to succeed (positive interdependence)

High-risk: more appropriate for collaborative learning experienced individuals

Each participant in a group (“Jigsaw Group”) studies a particular sub-problem. The participants of different groups that study the same problem meet in an “Expert Group” for exchanging ideas. These temporary groups become experts in the section of the problem given to them. At last, participants of each “Jigsaw group” meet to contribute with their “expertise” in order to solve the whole problem.

SOLUTION

(educational objectives)

(complexity)

CL Flow Patterns (IX)CL Flow Patterns (IX)

16

(diagramrepresentingthe solution)

Individual or initial group

Teacher Introductory

individual (or initial group)

activity

Collaborative activity around

the sub-problem

Collaborative activity around

the problem and solution proposal


CL Flow Patterns (X)CL Flow Patterns (X)

17


***

(E.g.) The expert-group phase can be structured according to Pyramid CLFP or

Brainstorming CLFP

Particularization into a script:

(E.g.) Provide experts with a tool so that they can take notes during the expert group that provide support when the original group re-assembles…

Instantiation of the Jigsaw CLFP-based script:

(E.g.) Being the only expert in a sub-problem in the “Jigsaw Group” can be a demanding experience. This can be mitigated if two group members share the same section of the problem.

(related patterns)

(recommendations for

particularization / customization,

instantiation and execution)

CL Flow Patterns (XI)CL Flow Patterns (XI)

18


Collaborative understanding of a paper where each subsection is assigned to each member of every “Jigsaw Group”…

Aronson, E., & Thibodeau, R. (1992). The Jigsaw classroom: a cooperative strategy for an educational psychology course. In Lynch, J., Modgil, C. & Modgil, S. (Eds.), Cultural diversity and the schools, Washington: Palmer, 231-256.

Clarke, J. (1994). "Pieces of the puzzle: The jigsaw method" In Sharan, S. (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods, Greenwood Press.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1999). Learning together and alone: cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning. (5th ed.) Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

…

(example)

(references)

CL Flow Patterns (XII)CL Flow Patterns (XII)

19

CL CL Flow Patterns (XIII)Flow Patterns (XIII)

AdvantagesAdvantages Way of communicating Way of communicating

Collaborative Learning expertise Collaborative Learning expertise (Practitioners can use CLFPs as a help for (Practitioners can use CLFPs as a help for structuring their own collaborative scenarios)structuring their own collaborative scenarios)

Conceptual common groundConceptual common ground

CLFPs can be collectively used forming CLFPs can be collectively used forming CLFPs hierarchiesCLFPs hierarchies in order to define richer in order to define richer collaborative learning flowscollaborative learning flows

20

ContentsContents







21

Combining CLFPs (I)Combining CLFPs (I)

CLFPs can be combinedCLFPs can be combined A phase of a CLFP is structured A phase of a CLFP is structured

using another CLFPusing another CLFP

Level 2

Level 1

1rs

2nd

3rd

4th

22

Combining CLFPs (II)Combining CLFPs (II)

1rs

2nd

3rd

4th

Add concrete information

about numbers of participants,

activity descriptions, resources, etc

To achieve an actual CSCL scenario, To achieve an actual CSCL scenario, refine refine the combination of CLFPs the combination of CLFPs (according to the particular learning situation)(according to the particular learning situation)

23

ContentsContents







24

Context of the case studyContext of the case study

5th year, 5th year, Telecommunication Telecommunication EngineeringEngineering

University of Valladolid, SpainUniversity of Valladolid, Spain

Course on "Operation, Administration and Maintenance of Course on "Operation, Administration and Maintenance of Communication Networks"Communication Networks"

Optional course,Optional course, students ~12 students ~12

One week blended scenarioOne week blended scenario::two F2F synchronous sessions and a virtual asynchronous two F2F synchronous sessions and a virtual asynchronous session in between session in between (previous courses without computer support)(previous courses without computer support)

25

Objectives of the scenarioObjectives of the scenario

Collaborative understandingCollaborative understanding of a of a complex long complex long technical papertechnical paper in order to: in order to: To use scientific literatureTo use scientific literature To acquire knowledge about the content of the To acquire knowledge about the content of the

articlearticle To synthesize what has been readTo synthesize what has been read (Collaborative learning)(Collaborative learning)::

To foster discussionTo foster discussion

Positive interdependence Positive interdependence

Individual accountabilityIndividual accountability

26

Planning the learning flow (I)Planning the learning flow (I)

A combination of 3 CLFPs:A combination of 3 CLFPs:

Pyramid, Jigsaw and TPSPyramid, Jigsaw and TPS

TPS (TPS (Think-Pair-ShareThink-Pair-Share) CLFP:) CLFP:

Each participant has time Each participant has time to think about the question. to think about the question. They pair and discuss their They pair and discuss their ideas about the question. ideas about the question. Then, they comment or take Then, they comment or take a classroom “vote”.a classroom “vote”.

27

Planning the learning flow (II)Planning the learning flow (II)

3 levels Pyramid 3 levels Pyramid First level: Jigsaw First level: Jigsaw

(4 Jigsaw groups of 3 experts)(4 Jigsaw groups of 3 experts)

Third level: TPSThird level: TPS

28

Planning the learning flow (III)Planning the learning flow (III)

Why these patterns?Why these patterns? They foster the desired learning objectives They foster the desired learning objectives

and fit the types of tasks:and fit the types of tasks: PyramidPyramid::

So that the student jointly identify the main concepts of the So that the student jointly identify the main concepts of the articlearticle

JigsawJigsaw::Since the paper is too long, they do not read it completely. Since the paper is too long, they do not read it completely. However, they need to know all what it explains. However, they need to know all what it explains.

TPSTPS::In the last Pyramid level, the discussion is structured in two In the last Pyramid level, the discussion is structured in two large groups. large groups.

29

Planning the learning flow (IV)Planning the learning flow (IV)

Individual phase

First Pyramid level

Read 1/3 of the paper

“Experts”phase

Discuss theirpart of

the paper

“Jigsaw” phase

Explain theirpart and agree on

main ideas

SecondPyramid level

Read othergroup’s results and agree…

Third Pyramid level

TPS withSpockesmen

Expose anddiscusspreviousresults…

30

Implementation (I)Implementation (I)

Authoring the Authoring the CSCSCL scenario:CL scenario: CollageCollage, a COLlaborative LeArning desiGn , a COLlaborative LeArning desiGn

Editor based on Patterns (CLFPs)Editor based on Patterns (CLFPs) ((http://gsic.tel.uva.es/collagehttp://gsic.tel.uva.es/collage))

IMS Learning DesignIMS Learning Design compliant compliant

Executing it:Executing it: GridcoleGridcole (based on (based on CopperCoreCopperCore engine) engine) Integrates a Integrates a shared repositoryshared repository (Synergeia), (Synergeia),

a a chatchat and a and a questionnaire toolquestionnaire tool (Quest) (Quest)

31

Synergeia

Jigsawgroup

Expert group

Chat Quest

Implementation (II)Implementation (II)

32

Implementation (III)Implementation (III)

Only the members

of his “expert” group

Chat

33

Preliminary resultsPreliminary results

Qualitative and quantitative approachesQualitative and quantitative approaches Questionnaires (also for the teacher), direct observations, Questionnaires (also for the teacher), direct observations,

logfiles, focus grouplogfiles, focus group

Some preliminary resultsSome preliminary results (not a complete analysis yet)(not a complete analysis yet) Students found Students found useful the structureuseful the structure of (coarse-grained) of (coarse-grained)

activities. activities. Not too coerciveNot too coercive: “Freedom” within activities : “Freedom” within activities (although they needed time to negotiate coordination) (although they needed time to negotiate coordination)

The achieved The achieved collaborationcollaboration was was satisfactorysatisfactory. The own . The own students indicated many benefits of the CL structure.students indicated many benefits of the CL structure.

The The systemsystem adequately adequately guidedguided and supported and supported the realization the realization of the activitiesof the activities. They appreciated having access to the . They appreciated having access to the system (i.e. activities) from home. system (i.e. activities) from home.

34

ContentsContents







35

ConclusionsConclusions

Collaborative Learning Flow Collaborative Learning Flow PatternsPatterns:: CommunicatingCommunicating and and reusingreusing Collaborative Collaborative

Designing Designing potentially effective CSCL scenariospotentially effective CSCL scenarios

Combinations of CLFPsCombinations of CLFPs (more flexibility)(more flexibility)

Introduction of design techniques in CSCL Introduction of design techniques in CSCL systems: systems: CollageCollage authoring tool authoring tool

Patterns at other levels: learning flows vs. Patterns at other levels: learning flows vs. activities (complementary)activities (complementary)

Davinia Hernández-LeoDavinia Hernández-Leohttp://gsic.tel.uva.es/members/daviniahttp://gsic.tel.uva.es/members/[email protected]@tel.uva.es

cscl scenarios based on combinations of cl flow patterns : a case study

Documents