Scripting%20strategies%20in%20computer%20supported%20collaborative%20learning

1
Scripting strategies in computer supported
collaborative learning
2
Menu

• Introduction
• Goals of the thesis
• Rich, action based learning
• What is scripting ?
• Choice of the tool
• Method
• Specific results
• Conclusions

3
Goal of the thesis

• Apply rich, action based units in real learning
  environments
• Test rich learning environments under different
  circumstances- Focalised paramters scripting
  and tool

4
Rich action based learning environment?
5
What is scripting?
A script is a story or scenario that the students
and tutors have to play as actors play a movie
script.

• Scripts enable integration of actions that were
  often separated individual, cooperative,
  collaborative and collective actions.
• Scripts enable integration of co-present actions
  and computer-mediated actions
• Scripts often include an important role for the
  tutor

6
Scripting example
7
The tool
Swiki -gt unstructured collaboration tool

• Concept of a Wiki
• Every user can create edit and change pages
• Reconstruction of older versions
• involve visitor in ongoning process -gt incites to
  improve and change existing sites

8
Principal question 1

• The use of a Swiki as collaborative editing tool
  causes no technical and comprehensive problems
  for high school students without experience in
  collaborative editing but with some knowledge of
  the use of a common text-editing software and the
  research of information in the Web.

9
Principal question 2

• Scripting which induces students to compare and
  comment on the work of the whole learning
  community (using a collaborative editing tool)
  leads to better learning performance than a
  script leading students to work without such a
  tool and with little advice or / and opportunity
  to make comments and compare their work with the
  learning community.

10
Principal question 3

• The quality of the product of the working groups
  is better (longer and more detailed) when
  students are induced to compare and comment on
  their work (with a collaborative editing tool)
  during the learning unit.

11
Method

• Work with high school students in normal learning
  environments.
• Testing 3 learning units.

Human embryology
Human anatomy
Evolution
12
What did we analyse? (part 1)

• Human anatomy unstructured script lt-gt
  evolution and human embryology structured
  script.
• Is there a difference in students satisfaction?

Human anatomy
Evolution
Human embryology
13
Subjective perception
Embryology
Human anatomy
Evolution
No statistical differences could be found within
the units
14
comparison of three scenarios difficulties to
edit input with the Swiki
Statistical difference between anatomy and
evolution (U 40 p 0.0065) but no difference
between the other settings (anatomy lt-gt
embryology U 45 p 0.09 and evolution lt-gt
embryology U 393 p 0.2).
15
comparison of three scenarios It is easy to get
lost within a text with many links
Almost significant difference (anatomy lt-gt
evolution U 60 p 0.09 anatomy embryology
U 46 p 0.07) BUT (evolution lt-gtembryology U
189 p 0.81)
16
Conclusion
Subjective perception

• Structuring the work has a positive influence on
  the sense of satisfaction that the students
  gained from the tool and the work in general (no
  statistical significance)
• Students in unstructured unit thought they were
  getting lost often within the few links, while
  the students that were guided had a different
  sensation
• Discussion is an important element of building a
  concept and learning in a constructivist way
  especially when different opinions merge and have
  to be compared (result not shown)

17
What did we analyse? (part 2)

• Scripting differences for two classes
• 1. Normal high school class working in
  conventional set up (without tool)
• 2. Vocational high school class working with the
  tool -gt vocational high school normally show
  inferior pedagogical performances compared to
  normal high school

Human embryology
Pre test
Post test
Final test
18
Increase of factual konwledge
Human embryology
n 17
ANOVA F(5, 101) 14.841 Pre test conventional
lt-gtpost test conventional plt 0.001 Pre test
Swiki lt-gt post test Swiki plt 0.001
19
Students confidence in their answers
Human embryology
ANOVA F(5, 101) 11.05 Pre test conventional
lt-gtpost test conventional plt 0.001 Pre test
Swiki lt-gt post test Swiki Plt 0.01
20
Comparison of the produced work
Human embryology

• Length of the summaries 10 pages for the
  conventional class, 36 pages for the Swiki class
• Number of topics treated9 topics for the
  conventional class14 topics for the Swiki class
• Quality of the content of the summariesComparable
  quality within the summaries

21
Conclusions
Human embryology

• Equal increase of knowledge and self evaluation
  capacities for different backgrounds (normal high
  school lt-gt vocational high school)
• Better quality of Product for Swiki scripting

22
Scripting leads to
23

• Our scripting leads to an
• Action based, hypertext - constructive, computer
  supported, collaborative learning environment
  (ABAHCOCOSUCOL)

24
ABAHCOCOSUCOL is adequate for tasks where it is
improtand to have

• Long-term knowledge retention
• Mastering a certain problem-solving strategy
• High quality of produced work
• Have a good use of some specific handling
• Increased metacognitive skills

25
(No Transcript)