Towards multimodal dialogue games - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Towards multimodal dialogue games PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 14760d-ZDE1M



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Towards multimodal dialogue games

Description:

Promoting the development of dialogical and reasoning skills across ... legitimised disagreement, challenging etc. - ve. restrictive. not always appropriate ? ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:47
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 14
Provided by: ISS26
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Towards multimodal dialogue games


1
Towards multimodal dialogue games
Andrew Ravenscroft Learning Technology Research
Institute London Metropolitan University
2
Overview of talk
  • Problems and challenges addressed
  • Why dialogue games?
  • The InterLoc approach and tool
  • Pilot testing
  • Multimodal enhancements
  • Discussion

3
Educational problem
  • Promoting the development of dialogical and
    reasoning skills across educational contexts
    (traditional HE, ODL, Continuing Education etc.)
  • Common problems of limited participation and
    superficial interaction with generic CMC tools
    well documented (e.g. Bonk et al., 1998)
  • Need to promote deep dialogical learning
  • engaging, meaningful and transformative
    interactions
  • link social and cognitive dimensions of learning
    process
  • Improve knowledge and learning processes (e.g.
    internalisation of dialectic and reasoning
    processes)
  • Iterative internalisation (Elsayed Hartley,
    2005)
  • promote the development and practice of thinking
    and interthinking

4
Technical challenge
  • Realising the Open Source vision for learning
    technology
  • working within the UK JISC ELF (E-Learning
    Framework)
  • develop e-learning tools that are reusable,
    adaptable and interoperable with other tools and
    applications
  • tools development follows conventions for Open
    Standards and developed within the Open Source
    community (e.g. software on Sourceforge)
  • two e-tools projects funded by JISC to develop
    and pilot test Dialogue Game/InterLoc approach
    (though inspired by and build upon lots of other
    work)

5
Why (Educational) Dialogue Games?
A method for specifying interaction designs in
terms of dialogue features (e.g. goals, roles,
tactics and rules) needed to realise particular
pedagogical goals (e.g. critical discussion and
reasoning, creative thinking) A level of
description that captures these features and is
capable of being implemented through
socio-cognitive tools (Ravenscroft Pilkington,
2000) Scaffold particular forms of dialogue (e.g.
argumentation) for particular educational
purposes (e.g. development of reasoning skills)
6
Educational Dialogue Games features
  • Pedagogical goals (or purpose) for conducting the
    game, approx. the type of game supported (e.g.
    critical discussion and reasoning, exploratory
    talk, creative thinking).
  • Numbers of players (e.g. small groups of 4 - 8)
  • Roles of the participants - may be symmetrical
    or asymmetrical (discussant, facilitator etc.)
  • Dialogue Moves (or tactics) that represent the
    intention of the performed utterances, e.g.
    Inform, Question, Challenge.
  • In designed tools locution Openers used
    toscaffold the expression of the actual
    surface level realisation of the Moves, that
    may vary depending on the particular game being
    played (e.g. I think, Let me explain, Why do
    you say that? Dont we need more evidence?)
  • Rules of interaction that guide and structure the
    dialogue process in ways that make it legitimate,
    coherent and relevant in meeting the pedagogical
    goals (e.g. turn-taking and permissible move
    sequences)

7
A mediating tool InterLoc
8
Pilot testing Contexts details
  • 4 Universities LonMet, OU, Soton, Oxford
  • Range of students and contexts (HE, ODL, Cont.Ed)
  • 4 4-8 LonMet/OU, 2 4-8 Soton/Oxford (48-96)
  • DGs added or linked to course curriculum
  • Comp. Science, PGCE Maths, MSc Science,
    Philosophy
  • Methods
  • Post game questionnaire, follow up interviews
    (students lecturers), DA of transcripts
  • data collection two thirds complete

9
Pilot testing Interim findings
  • student feedback positive and interesting
    (responses to open questions)
  • Enjoyable (I loved it!)
  • Ss Valued DGs as a (new) forum for debate and
    learning
  • qualitatively better than available alternatives
  • Promoted fair and even contributions, Ss felt
    safe to express themselves and challenge others
  • empowerment of those less confident
  • Found the organisation and management relatively
    intuitive (better than other CMC approaches)
  • Ss wanted to use it again
  • made them think and focussed the discussion
  • Generally, led to learning and better
    understanding

10
Pilots Learners comments
Did the dialogue game, using the sentence
openers, change how you expressed, clarified or
refined your ideas on this topic? Please
comment as appropriate (LonMet) S1. Yes it did,
with the openers, I then had to t think before
composing the rest of the sentence As a student,
would it be useful to participate regularly in
dialogues like this one? (Southampton) S2. Yes,
because everyone can put their views across
without loads of pupils shouting! S3. Good
point.Often quiet people do have very good points
to make, but are too scared to make them. Did
you enjoy discussing the topic in this way, and
do you have any further comments? (LonMet) S4.
yes. 100 number remarked preferred DG to f2f
dialogue! .
11
Pilot testing the Locution Openers
  • positive yet ambivalent remarks
  • ve
  • scaffolded contributions
  • confidence and linguistic skills
  • variety of options
  • stimulated and supported thinking
  • legitimised disagreement, challenging etc.
  • - ve
  • restrictive
  • not always appropriate
  • ? didnt like formal thinking ( hard work)
  • felt pressurised to make quick response,
    hangover from chat

12
Multimodal enhancements
  • Increase expressive and linguistic richness and
    semantic clarity in an economical and intuitive
    way (cf. more openers)
  • Graphical representation of locutionary force of
    some openers (high, neutral, low) using icons,
    graphics, colours etc.
  • I disagree because high, neutral, low
  • More sophisticated integration of
    multimedia/multimodal artefacts
  • Improve relevance, motivation and engagement
  • Increase sensory experience during discourses
  • Coordination of dialogues about and around
    multimedia material through shared views
  • multimedia dialogue games
  • Use of web-cams/representation of identity
    co-presence
  • Graphical representation of dialogues and
    arguments (argument maps)
  • reflective summary and personal conceptualisation
    and articulation of performed dialogues
  • Additional input methods to increase flexibility
    and support additional user scenarios?
  • auditory input (is mixing modalities in this way
    problematic?)
  • handwritten input (via a tablet)
  • Moving towards mobile possibilities
  • any other ideas?

13
More information
  • Contact papers etc.
  • a.ravenscroft_at_londonmet.ac.uk
  • http//homepages.unl.ac.uk/ravensca/
  • InterLoc project
  • http//www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?nameetools2
  • Software http//sourceforge.net/
  • Research theme
  • Learning interaction and networked communities
  • http//www.unl.ac.uk/ltri/research/interaction.htm
About PowerShow.com