Seminario eMadrid sobre "Inteligencia natural y artificial en educación". Colaborar para aprender: ¿Esperar lo mejor pero prepararse para lo peor?. Frank Fischer. Universidad de Munich. 17/03/2017.

1. Collaborating to learn: Hope for the
best but prepare for the worst
Frank Fischer
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität
München

2. 2

3. WISE Bell, Linn; Kollar, Fischer and Slotta (2005)

4. 6

6. A case-based CSCL environment
(Weinberger, Stegmann & Fischer, 2003; 2011)

7. Individual analysis
Collaborative learning
Video Cases in Teacher Education

8. Simulation-based learning in medical education:
Crisis Resource Management Skills
Jan Zottmann, Peter Dieckmann,
Marcus Rall, Frank Fischer & Tatjana Taraszow (2009; subm.)

9. Simulation-Based Courses
with Video-Assisted Debriefing
• Hands-on simulation courses
– 2-3 active participants
– 8-10 live observing participants

10. Collaborative Observation Script for the „waiting“ participants
„Vicarious Learning“ (Stegmann et al., 2012)

11. Learning Partner A
Learning Partner B
Situational Conditions
Instructional support
Cognitive Processing Learning Outcomes
Individual Readiness for
Learning
Cognitive Readiness
Motivational Readiness
Social Learning Activities
Social Learning Activities
Cognitive Processing
Individual Readiness for
Learning
Cognitive Readiness
Motivational Readiness
Learning Outcomes
Wecker & Fischer (2014)

12. ICAP-model (Chi, 2009)
Rummel & Kollar (2014), Learning in social settings | Cognition 3.0 - the social mind in the connected world | IK Günne | March 16 – March 17 2014
Overt
activities
Passive
(e.g. listening to
partner‘s
contribution)
Active
(e.g. underline
or paraphrase
text)
Constructive
(e.g. self-
explain
material)
Interactive
(e.g.
give/receive
feedback on
contribution)
Underlying
cognitive
processes
Sometimes not
any…
Activation of
prior knowledge
Assimilation,
encoding, storing
of information
Restructuring
knowledge
Synthesizing own
and partner‘s
explanations,
leading to shared
understanding

13. ICAP hypothesis (Chi, 2009)
I > C > A > P

14. Social processes predictive for learning
• Explaining
– Explainers learn more than receivers of explanations
– Self-generated solution better than using other-generated solutions
– Receivers of explanations benefit most if they apply the new
knowledge themselves

15. Social processes predictive for learning
• Thought-provoking questions (King, 2007)
– Go beyond factual and comprehension questions
– Requires the individual to process and go beyond the given material
– Create the need, e.g., to generate examples, to create alternative
perspectives or solutions, to generalize, to justify, or to apply

16. Social processes predictive for learning
• Resolving cognitive discrepancies (Mugny &
Doise, 1978)
– Becoming aware of different and potentially incompatible ideas or
positions in social interaction
– The need to resolve this socio-cognitive conflict
– The real „motor“ of collaborative learning (Roschelle, 1992)

17. Social processes predictive for learning
• Argumentation (Andriessen et al., 2003)
– Argumentation as process of resolving socio-cognitive conflicts
– Claim and counter-claim can trigger evidence-based reasoning
– learners need to process the learning material with very high-level
cognitive processing, including „drawing conclusions“ and integrating
argument and counter-argument in a synthesis.

18. Social processes predictive for learning
• Modeling of cognition (Collins et al., 1989)
– Learners who are good in questioning, explaining, elaborating etc are
ideal cognitive models in collaborative learning
– Very effective for cognition and meta-cognition
– Thinking-aloud or other forms of externalising cognition can be
effective

19. Social processes predictive for learning
• (Peer-)Feedback on performance (Stribos et al., 2011)
– Better if criteria based
– If feedback comes from several peers
– Should be on process rather than on outcome for more
complex tasks (Hattie & Timperley, 2007)

20. Does it work spontaneously?

21. A case-based online discussion environment
(Weinberger, Stegmann & Fischer, 2003)

23. Online peer discussion (raw data)

24. Andrea:
Ich hab irgendwie den Überblick verloren! Sind wir uns
einig dass das ein internal stabiles Verhalten ist und das eine
negative Attribution der Eltern vorliegt. Zusätzlich könnte
man sagen, dass der Lehrer eine Reattribution fördern sollte
(um das Verhalten zu ändern). Und natürlich auch bei den
Eltern.
Ben:
>Ich hab irgendwie den Überblick verloren! Sind wir uns
>einig dass das ein internal stabiles Verhalten ist und das eine
>negative Attribution der Eltern vorliegt. Zusätzlich könnte
>man sagen, dass der Lehrer eine Reattribution fördern sollte
>(um das Verhalten zu ändern). Und natürlich auch bei den
>Eltern.
OK! Lasst uns zum Fall Klassentreffen wechseln.
OT/FNN/BS
R3/FBF/FRA
R4/FBF/FRA
R7/FBF/FRA
R17/ERG/BS
QUOTED
KOO/AKZ/PLA

25. 28
• In line with
findings on
cooperative
learning (Gillies,
2009; Slavin
2000)

26. The two basic forms of pedagogical intervention in CSCL
Support self-regulation:
1. Cognitive awareness tools
2. Social awareness tools
Shape interaction:
3. Collaboration scripts
4. Community-building environments
 Overview on different pedagogical approaches in Kirschner et
al. (2013)

27. Group awareness tools
 Idea: Groups are presented with information about themselves that may be relevant for
their group processes
 Cognitive awareness: Information about group members’ knowledge and expertise
 Social awareness: Information about group members’ contributions to the group
process
 Intended effects: Based on the information that is displayed to the group…
 …coordination may be facilitated,
 …contributions may be shaped in a way that is more adequate in light of the
knowledge and expertise of the co-learners,
 …the group may self-regulate its collaboration
Borrowed from: Learning in social settings | Cognition 3.0 - the social mind in the connected world | IK Günne | March 16 – March 17 2014

28. A social group awareness tools
Dillenbourg et al. (2008)
Phielix et al., 2011

29. A cognitive group awareness tool
(Dehler, Bodemer,
Buder & Hesse, 2009)
Learning in social settings | Cognition 3.0 - the social mind in the connected world | IK Günne | March 16 – March 17 2014

30. Group awareness tools
 Group awareness tools as a “soft” method of facilitating collaborative learning, not
much interference with actual collaboration process
 Effectiveness is documented with respect to some important social processes, not
so much with respect to improved performance in individual post-tests
 Possible problem: Sometimes group members do not have the competence to
effectively deal with the information they are provided with by a group awareness tool
Borrowed from: Learning in social settings | Cognition 3.0 - the social mind in the connected world | IK Günne | March 16 – March 17 2014

31. So what are collaboration scripts?
A collaboration script is a content-independent support
that…
– …prompts,
– …sequences,
– …and distributes…
…(meta-) cognitive and social learning activities as well
as collaboration roles among members of a small
group (Kollar, Fischer & Hesse, 2006)
Internal and external collaboration scripts

32. Internal Collaboration Script COMPONENTS
Play A
Scene
Role 1Scriptlet
Scene Scene
Partly based on Dynamic Memory model of LTM representation of
knowledge (Schank, 1999)
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Play B
Role 2
Scene

33. Visit at the dentist‘s
Say
goodbye
Treat-
ment
WaitEnter office Show
insurance card
Enter waiting
room (A)
Greet (A) Greet (B) Scan magazines
(A)
…
The structure of internal scripts

34. Visit at the lawyer‘s
Say
Goodbye
Counse-
ling
WaitEnter office
Enter waiting
room (A)
Greet (A) Greet (B) Scan magazines
(A)
…
The structure of internal scripts

35. What are internal collaboration scripts?
•Collaboration Scripts: knowledge structures that help
individuals to understand and to act in specific collaborative
situations (in part: Schank, 1999).
•Culturally shared and personal knowledge on collaboration.
•Re-conceptualising “lack of knowledge”: Erroneous, lacking
or heterogeneous application of (internal) collaboration scripts
in computer-supported collaborative learning discourse.

36. External collaboration scripts

37. A case-based CSCL environment (Weinberger, Stegmann
& Fischer, 2003)

38. • Play level scaffold:
„Please discuss now (10 min)“

39. Constructive Critic:
Critique
Case Analyst: ReplyCase Analyst: Reply
Constructive Critic:
Critique
Case Analyst:
New Analysis
Constructive Critic:
Critique
Constructive Critic:
Critique
Case Analyst:
First Analysis
Peer critiquing script

40. Scene level scaffolding

42. Scriptlet level scaffolding
Claim Warrant + Data
Qualifier
Claim
...
Warrant + Data
...
Qualifier
...
He believes he is not
talented due to failures.
This means an internal
stable attribution of
failures.
Michael suffers from an
inefficient self-attribution
in maths.
Michael simply might be lazy
or swamped with maths or
suffer from bad instruction.
Stegmann, Weinberger & Fischer (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction. ijCSCL.

43. Fostering simulation-based learning in medical education with
collaboration scripts
Simulation-Based Courses with Video-Assisted
Debriefing at U. of Tübingen
Jan Zottmann, Peter Dieckmann,
Marcus Rall, Frank Fischer & Tatjana Taraszow (2009; subm.)

44. Collaborative Observation Script for the „waiting“ participants
„Vicarious Learning“ (Stegmann et al., 2012): S
cene and scriptlet level scaffolding

45. Individual analysis
Collaborative learning

46. 51
Scaffolding on scene and scriptlet level
Collab.
Script:
Individual
analysis
Joint
analysis
Individual
reflection

47. 52WISE Bell, Linn; Kollar, Fischer and Slotta (2005)

51. So do they help?
• Meta-analysis on effects of studies using collaboration scripts in
CSCL (Vogel, Kollar, Wecker & Fischer, 2014):
– Includes 31 articles with N = 3.132 learners
• Learning processes
– Content quality
– Social quality
• Learning outcomes
– Domain-specific outcomes
– Domain-general outcomes

52. Results
k = 17
d = 0.29#
k = 22
d = 0.36*
Learning processes

53. Results
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Domain-specific
outcomes
Domain-general
outcomes
Effectsize(Hedges'g)
*
k = 33
d = 0.20*
k = 10
d = 0.64*
Learning outcomes

54. Results
Effect sizes of single
studies for „social
quality during
learning process“

55. Internal Collaboration Script COMPONENTS
Play A
Scene
Role 1Scriptlet
Scene Scene
Dynamic Memory model of representation of knowledge (Schank, 1999)
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Play B
Role 2
Scene

56. What internal script level should
external scripts target?
What internal script level should be targeted by the
collaboration scripts?
– Meta-analysis by Vogel et al. (2016):
• Categorizing external scripts with respect to the
internal script level they predominately target (play,
scene, scriptlet)
• ICC = 0.58

57. Effects on learning processes
Play level
Play level
Scene level
Scene level
Scriptlet level
Scriptlet level
-0,5
-0,4
-0,3
-0,2
-0,1
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
Content quality Social quality
Effectsize(Hedges'g)
64
k = 3
d = -0.14
k = 9
d = 0.57*
k = 5
d = 0.02
k = 3
d = 0.60*
k = 15
d = 0.46* k = 6
d = 0.26

58. Conclusion
• Prepare for the worst..
• For CL to be effective, not any kind of interaction is equally
instrumental:
• Interactive activities I>C>A>P
• Effective social processes: Explaining, asking thought
provoking questions, resolving cognitive discrepancies,
argumentation, modeling cognition, peer feedback
• Collaboration has very high potential for interactivity.
However, this potential is often not realised without additional
support

59. Conclusion
• Sometimes, simple support of group self-regulation with
awareness tools can be enough
• Often, however, more is needed – especially when
collaboration skills are not yet at the disposal of the
learners
• Targeting the scene level proved to be most effective for
domain learning.
• For strategy learning – including collaboration skills –
scriptlet, scene, and play level are the targets (Vogel et al.,
2013)

60. 67
frank.fischer@psy.lmu.de
Thank you and thanks to all my collaborators