COLLAGE, a Collaborative Learning Design Editor Based on Patterns - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – COLLAGE, a Collaborative Learning Design Editor Based on Patterns PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 6c5789-Nzk2O



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

COLLAGE, a Collaborative Learning Design Editor Based on Patterns

Description:

COLLAGE, a Collaborative Learning Design Editor Based on Patterns Davinia Hern ndez-Leo, Eloy Villasclaras-Fern ndez, Iv n M. Jorr n-Abell n, Juan I. Asensio ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:19
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 39
Provided by: Davin65
Category:

less

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

Title: COLLAGE, a Collaborative Learning Design Editor Based on Patterns


1
COLLAGE, a Collaborative Learning Design Editor
Based on Patterns
Davinia Hernández-Leo, Eloy Villasclaras-Fernández
, Iván M. Jorrín-Abellán, Juan I. Asensio-Pérez,
Yannis Dimitriadis, Inés Ruiz-Requies, Bartolomé
Rubia-Avi GSIC / EMIC Group University of
Valladolid, Spain
Workshop on Current Research on
IMS-LD Valkenburg, September 22-23, 2005
http//gsic.tel.uva.es
2
Contents
  • Introduction
  • Collaborative Learning Flow Patterns (CLFP)
  • Collage (COLaborative LeArning desiGn Editor)
  • Preliminary evaluation
  • Conclusions

3
Introduction (I)
  • CSCL (Computer Supported Collaborative Learning)
  • Social interactions as essential for learning
  • Coexistence of different expectations,
    requirements, knowledge, interest of CL
    practitioners and technologists
  • Identification and analysis of requirements for
    the development of CSCL solutions that support
    effective ways of learning
  • CL practitioners become active players in
    customizing technological solutions to the needs
    of their particular learning situations

4
Introduction (II)
  • How to obtain technological solutions for CL
    capable of being modified / particularized /
    customized by users of CSCL, which are not
    (usually) technical experts?
  • CL practitioners and technologist are not
    separated players with clear responsibility
    boundaries
  • Solution
  • Facilitating practitioners to play the role of
    designers

5
Introduction (III)
  • Enabling participatory design by means of
    authoring tools for collaboration scripts
  • CL practitioners can influence in the behavior
    and functionality of a CSCL solution by providing
    a formalized collaboration script
  • - Formalisms (XML) are not familiar to educators
  • - CL complexity
  • Authoring tools that guide practitioners through
    the elaboration of scripts by representations and
    abstractions easy to understand and use

6
Introduction (IV)
  • How can teachers develop
  • effective collaborative learning designs/
    collaboration scripts
  • that are to be interpreted by LMSs
  • so that they can influence in the behavior and
    functionality of the CSCL system
  • according to the necessities of a particular
    learning situation?

7
Introduction (V)
  • Approach
  • Collaborative learning designs based on patterns
    in best practices
  • Re-usable patterns as a basis for new designs
    (such a kind of template that can be filled to
    create the new collaboration script)
  • Patterns can be particularized and combined
  • Formalization of the patterns / designs so that
    they are computer-interpretable
  • using IMS Learning Design (IMS-LD)

8
Introduction (VI)
  • Diverse approaches of LD editors
  • RELOAD, CopperAuthor, COSMOS general purpose
    editors close to the specification (for LD
    experts)
  • MOT Editor, ASK-LDT graphical representations
    facilitates the authoring, but still LD knowledge
    is needed
  • Our approach
  • A high-level (distant from the specification,
    user-friendly) collaborative-learning specialized
    editor that allows teachers to create their own
    collaborative LD by starting from existing
    patterns
  • COLLAGE (COLaborative LeArning desiGn Editor)

9
CL Flow Patterns (I)
  • Collection and formulation of
  • Broadly accepted techniques repetitively used by
    CL practitioners (best practices) when
    structuring the flow of types of (collaborative)
    learning activities
  • as
  • patterns Collaborative Learning Flow Patterns
    (CLFPs)
  • Solution to a recurrent problem what flow of
    activities for promoting desired educational
    objectives
  • Way of communicating CL expertise

10
CL Flow Patterns (II)
  • Jigsaw CLFP (1)

(related larger patterns)
  • 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

CONTEXT
PROBLEM
11
CL Flow Patterns (III)
  • Jigsaw CLFP (2)

(educational objectives)
(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 its expertise in
order to solve the whole problem.
(complexity)
SOLUTION
12
CL Flow Patterns (IV)
  • Jigsaw CLFP (3)

(diagram representing the solution)
Introductory individual (or initial group)
activity
Collaborative activity around the sub-problem
Collaborative activity around the problem and
solution proposal
13
CL Flow Patterns (V)
  • Jigsaw CLFP (4)

(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)
14
CL Flow Patterns (VI)
  • Jigsaw CLFP (5)

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)
15
CL Flow Patterns (VII)
  • CLFPs can be collectively used forming CLFPs
    hierarchies in order to define more complex
    collaborative learning flows
  • CLFPs can be combined
  • (a phase of a CLFP is structured using another
    CLFP)
  • Or concatenated
  • (separated consecutive phases of a design are
    structured using different CLFPs)

16
CL Flow Patterns (VIII)
  • Recapitulating
  • Need of formalizing CLFPs so that
  • they can be implemented in authoring tools
  • for designing potentially effective collaboration
    scripts
  • that are to be interpreted by LMSs

17
Collage (I)
(COLlaborative LeArning desiGn
Editor) http//gsic.tel.uva.es/collage
(Graphic-based high-level specialized authoring
tool for collaborative learning. Based on Reload.
IMS-LD level A compliant)
18
Collage (II)
Design process (1)
IMS-LD formalized CLFPs
a. Choose a CLFP depending on the objectives
promoted, the type of problem or task the CLFP is
more suited and the complexity
Selecting a CLFP
b. Read the help about the chosen CLFP
Understand the learning flow structure on which
the LD will be based
Authoring a CLFP-based LD
19
Collage (II)
Selecting a CLFP (1)
Learning objectives
Type of problems / tasks
Complexity (CL experience)
20
Collage (III)
Selecting a CLFP (2)
Overview
Example
21
Collage (IV)
Design process (2)
IMS-LD formalized CLFPs
c. Determine the title, objectives and
prerequisites of the LD
Selecting a CLFP
d. Specify the collaborative learning flow The
learning flow of the selected CLFP can be
enriched replacing one or several of its phases
with another CLFP. Depending on the CLFP some
aspects should be decided.
e. Define the description activities, activity
completion, the information about roles
(including groups), group-size limits.
Authoring a CLFP-based LD
g. Determine and configure the resources needed
to support the activities
h. Associate resources to activities
i. Package the LD into a Unit of Learning
f. Create or select resources (content and tools)
22
Collage (V)
Authoring a CLFP-based LD (1)
23
Collage (VI)
  • Trade off between generality and unrestricted
    design options vs. good reuse and
    particularization of CLFPs (and hierarchies) and
    an easy edition of collaborative LDs
  • Intuitive graphical representation of CLFPs
  • User do not need to know the existence and
    function of some (difficult to understand) IMS-LD
    elements
  • Interoperability but it is not a viewer of any
    LD
  • Selection of CLFPs (considering users not
    familiar with the jargon) supporting the
    analysis phase
  • Reuse learning flow vs. reuse activity (LAMS)
    complementary

24
Preliminary evaluation (I)
  • Collage and further information about our
    authoring tool is available in http//gsic.tel.uva
    .es/collage
  • User manual, worksheet and questionnaire
  • Example
  • brief description of the example
  • UoL
  • some snapshots of CopperCore running it

25
Preliminary evaluation (II)
  • Design a real CL experience
  • Faculty of Education, University of Valladolid,
    Spain
  • Course The use of ICT in Education
  • Conceptual objective deeper understanding of
    three topics
  • Blended scenario (F2F and distance activities,
    with and without computer-support)
  • 40 students
  • Tools Synergeia BSCL and MapTool
  • Method Combination of Jigsaw and Pyramid CLFPs

26
Preliminary evaluation (III)
  • Conditions of the evaluation study
  • The three teachers (familiar with CLFPs but not
    with LD, first time using Collage), 90 minutes,
    worksheet
  • Qualitative and quantitative approaches
  • Direct observations, questionnaires, analysis of
    the generated UoLs
  • Categories of analysis user profile, general use
    of the editor, example creation and suggestions

27
Preliminary evaluation (IV)
  • Some results
  • Use of the editor
  • Intuitive adequate representations of CLFPs.
    Arguments that support the user-friendliness
  • Example creation
  • Successful (with minor problems)
  • CopperCore correctly validates the three UoLs
  • UoLs largely describes the example (but some
    description of activities not completed)

28
Preliminary evaluation (V)
  • Opinions
  • It helps to think in terms of CL and its
    previous arrangements
  • It helps to structure a complex learning design
    and promotes time and resources planning
  • It enables the generation of contextualized
    learning processes according to the needs of each
    situation

29
Preliminary evaluation (VI)
  • Further evaluation
  • Two other teachers (minor LD knowledge, familiar
    with CLFPs, first time using Collage)
  • Design experiences already performed
  • Administration of communication networks
  • Jigsaw CLFP combined with Brainstorming CLFP
    (expert phase of Jigsaw) and Pyramid CLFP (last
    phase of Jigsaw)
  • Advanced Telematic Systems
  • Jigsaw CLFP
  • Analogous evaluation method
  • Minor usability problems (without worksheet)

30
Conclusions (I)
  • CLFPs not only stored in a pattern repository
    but implemented in an authoring tool
  • Communicating CL expertise, common conceptual
    ground, etc Facilitating its reuse!
  • Collage Easy edition of potentially effective
    LDs by reusing and customizing best practices in
    CL structuring (6 CLFPs at the moment but no
    limit on combinations)
  • More CLFPs
  • Preliminary evaluations have been made but
    further evaluation is needed (users not familiar
    with CLFPs, running UoLs in real settings)

31
Conclusions (II)
  • Integrating Collage into Gridcole, a system
    capable of interpreting LDs and setting up the
    technological environment
  • Exploring solutions to the lack of support of LD
    level B and C in Collage
  • Exploring alternative for creating LDs including
    CLFPs and other structures
  • Printed lessons plans (for checking, F2F)
  • Management tool for the creation of groups and
    binding of individuals to groups according to the
    CLFP hierarchy structure of an LD

32
Conclusions (III)
  • e-Learning project TELL (Towards Effective
    network supported coLLaborative learning
    activities) (http//cosy.ted.unipi.gr/tell/)
  • Identifying patterns using real case studies as
    a starting point
  • Other types of patterns. Patterns that involves
    activities (e.g. discussion) or general aspects
    (e.g. awareness)
  • How to incorporate these other types of patterns
    into authoring tools?

33
COLLAGE, a Collaborative Learning Design Editor
Based on Patterns
Davinia Hernández-Leo, Eloy Villasclaras-Fernández
, Iván M. Jorrín-Abellán, Juan I. Asensio-Pérez,
Yannis Dimitriadis, Inés Ruiz-Requies, Bartolomé
Rubia-Avi GSIC / EMIC Group University of
Valladolid, Spain
Thank you for your attention!
Workshop on IMS-LD Valkenburg, September 22-23,
2005
http//gsic.tel.uva.es
34
Summary of the example
35
Jigsaw, phase 1
36
Pyramid
37
Jigsaw, phase 3
38
Teacher
About PowerShow.com