3. luento tieto- ja viestintätekniikan pedagogiset perusteet: tietokoneavusteinen yhteisöllinen oppiminen (CSCL)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Like this? Share it with your network


3. luento tieto- ja viestintätekniikan pedagogiset perusteet: tietokoneavusteinen yhteisöllinen oppiminen (CSCL)



Luento aiheesta tietokoneavusteinen yhteisöllinen oppiminen. Luennon runkona on käytetty tätä kirjankappaletta: "Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on ...

Luento aiheesta tietokoneavusteinen yhteisöllinen oppiminen. Luennon runkona on käytetty tätä kirjankappaletta: "Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning: from design to orchestration. In Technology-Enhanced Learning. Principles and products (p. 3-19). Edited by N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, T., A. Lazonder & S. Barnes. Springer.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



5 Embeds 2,014

http://jarinopetus.wordpress.com 1971
http://tvtopetus.purot.net 36
http://paper.li 4
http://us-w1.rockmelt.com 2
http://twitter.com 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

3. luento tieto- ja viestintätekniikan pedagogiset perusteet: tietokoneavusteinen yhteisöllinen oppiminen (CSCL) Presentation Transcript

  • 1. C omputer- S upported C ollaborative L earning
    • Jari Laru, M.Ed, University Teacher , Deparment of Educational Sciences, University of Oulu
    • 410014Y Tieto- ja viestintätekniikka pedagogisena työvälineenä 2011
    Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning: from design to orchestration. In Technology-Enhanced Learning. Principles and products (p. 3-19). Edited by N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, T., A. Lazonder & S. Barnes. Springer. Structure of this lecture is based on: most of images used have been retrieved from commons.wikipedia.org
  • 2. Tieto- ja viestintätekniikka pedagogisena työvälineenä, luennot http://www.slideshare.net/larux/johdantoluento-tieto-ja-viestinttekniikan-perusteet-opintojaksolle http://www.slideshare.net/larux/1-luento-tieto-ja-viestinttekniikan-perusteet-opintojaksolla-tvt-opetuskytn-historia http://www.slideshare.net/larux/2-luento-tieto-ja-viestinttekniikan-pedagogiset-perusteet-kurssilla-tvt-ja-yhteiskunta http://www.slideshare.net/larux/3-luento-tieto-ja-viestinttekniikan-pedagogiset-perusteet-tietokoneavusteinen-yhteisllinen-oppiminen-cscl http://www.slideshare.net/larux/4-luento-tieto-ja-viestinttekniikan-pedagogiset-perusteet-nykyajan-medialukutataito http://www.slideshare.net/larux/5-luento-tieto-ja-viestinttekniikan-pedagoginen-opetuskytt-kurssil Http://www.slideshare.net/larux & http://jarinopetus.wordpress.com
  • 3. Collaborative learning / Collaborative education – ”history” “ Collaborative education in the U.S. began in the 1970s as a response to the previous decade’s mentality that students who needed help and didn’t seek this help did not belong in college. In response to this, colleges began providing peer tutoring and in-class group work. This led to the discovery that these forms of collaboration did not change what people learned, but how they learned”
  • 4. Learning of technology Learning with technology Taylor, R. (1980). The Computer in the School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee. NY: Teachers College Press
  • 5. What is collaborative learning? Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning. Collaborative learning Cognitive and computational approaches , 1–16. Citeseer. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi= A coordinated synchronous activity that is the result of continued attempt to construct and maintain a shared conception of a problem (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995) Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in paired problem solving. Computersupported collaborative learning (pp. 69-97). Springer-Verlag.
  • 6.
    • Structure of interaction designed to facilitate accomplishment of an end product or goal through people working together in groups
    • well-stuctured knowledge domain
    • is accomplished by the division of labor among participants, as an activity where each person is responsible for a portion of the problem solving
    Cooperative vs. Collaborative
    • Collaboration as a philiosophy of interaction and personal lifestyle
    • Ill-structured knowledge domain
    • mutual engagement of participants in a coordinated effort to solve problem together
    Cooperative learning Collaborative learning Resta & Laferriere, 2007; Panitz, 1996; Slavin, 1997; Teasley, 1995
  • 7. Commonalities
    • Learning is active
    • The teacher is usually more a facilitator than a “ sage on the stage ”
    • Teaching and learning are shared experiences
    • Students participate in small-group activities
    • Students take responsibility for learning
    • Students reflect on their own assumptions and thought processes
    • Social and team skills are developed through the give-and-take of consensus-building
    Kirchner, 2001
  • 8. Four instructional motives for the use of technology in support of collaborative learning
    • To prepare students for the knowledge society (collaboration skills and knowledge creation
    • To enhance students cognitive performance or foster deep understanding
    • To add flexibility of time and space for cooperative/collaborative learning
    • To foster student engagement and keep track of student cooperative/collaborative work
    Resta & Laferriere, 2007
  • 9. 1. More interaction balances out less individualisation
  • 10. 1. More interaction balances out less individualisation Dickson, W. & Vereen, M. A. (1983). Two students at one microcomputer. Theory Into Practice , 22 (4), 296-300. doi:10.1080/00405848309543077 “ it appeared that when we did have to put two children in front of a computer, the results were actually positive: the imperfect individualisation was compensated for by the benefits of social interactions ” 1983: Key educational principle was the adaptation of instruction to individual needs
  • 11. 2. There is an illusion of convergence, actually CSCL practises lie at crossroads of two different perspectives: A. Distributed cognition (socio-cognitive) B. Situated cognition (socio-cultural )
  • 12.
    • From Instructional and educational psychology activities that foster social interactions are methods by which individuals construct knowledge
    A. Distributed cognition (socio-cognitive) LET - Oppimisen ja koulutusteknologian tutkimusyksikkö Jari Laru, 22.4.2009 http://www.stanford.edu/~roypea/RoyPDF%20folder/A67_Pea_93_DI_CUP.pdf
  • 13. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
  • 14. Kognitiiviset työkalut 1/3 LET - Oppimisen ja koulutusteknologian tutkimusyksikkö Jari Laru, 22.4.2009
    • “ Mobiililaitteita tuleekin tarkastella kognitiivisina työkaluina, ei pelkkinä teknologisista lähtökohdista suunniteltuina tiedonsiirtolaitteina ” (Laru, ITK 2003)
  • 15. Kognitiiviset työkalut 2/3
    • Kognitiivisen työkalun käsite kattaa kaikki ne välineet, joita voidaan käyttää kognitiivisten prosessien tukemiseen (Lajoie 1993). Tarkemman määrittelyn mukaan se kattaa ne välineet, jotka tukevat ajattelun, ongelmanratkaisun ja oppimisen mahdollistavia kognitiivisia prosesseja (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996).
    • Kognitiivisten työvälineiden teoreettinen tausta nousee Hutchinsin (1995) hajautetun kognition ja Pean (1993) hajautetun asiantuntijuuden teorioista, joiden mukaan käytämme ympärillämme olevia ihmisiä, symboleja ja artefakteja jatkuvasti ja tiedostamattamme osana arkipäiväistä toimintaamme.
    LET - Oppimisen ja koulutusteknologian tutkimusyksikkö Jari Laru, 22.4.2009
  • 16. Kognitiiviset työkalut 3/3
    • Älypuhelinten yleistyminen on mahdollistamassa sekä pöytätietokoneista tuttujen kognitiivisten “ työkalujen mobilisoinnin ” että täysin uudenlaistet sovellukset, jotka hyödyntävät mobiiliteknologian erityispiirteitä (Keefe & Zucker, 2003; Rochelle & Pea, 2002)
    LET - Oppimisen ja koulutusteknologian tutkimusyksikkö Jari Laru, 22.4.2009
  • 17. B. Situated cognition (socio-cultural)
    • Within a socio-cultural perspective, social interaction is more than a method, it is the essence of cognition and hence the goal of learning
    LET - Oppimisen ja koulutusteknologian tutkimusyksikkö Jari Laru, 22.4.2009 Lave and Wenger provide details of aprrenticeships from among midvives, tailors, quartermasters, butchers, and alcoholics.
  • 18. 3. The formal/informal border is blurred
  • 19.
    • one spesific feature of CSCL has been it ’ s relevance for both formal and informal learning, without separating these two worlds hermeneutically
    • Empirical studies attemps to transfer succesfull (informal) practises into classrooms, by transforming schools into learning communities (Bielaczyk & Collins, 1999; Scardmalia & Bereiter, 1994)
  • 20. computer-supported intentional learning environments (CSILE)
    • aim at reframing classroom discourse to support knowledge building in ways extensible to out-of-school knowledge- advancing enterprises and make school education more situated (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
    • In one scenario, records made at the place of work (knowledge in action) "ground" reflective activities in the classroom. (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994)
  • 21. 4. Collaborative learning is not a recipe
  • 22. Global CSCL question
    • Collaboration per se does not produce learning outcomes; it ’ s results depend upon the extent to which groups actually engage in productive interactions.
    • Global CSCL reseach question(s): under which conditions is a CSCL environment effective? (Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye, & O ’ Malley, 1996)
      • under which conditions do specific interactions occur?
      • which interactions are predictive of learning outcomes?
    • Three main categories have been found to facilitate learning:
      • explanation
      • argumentation / negotiation
      • mutual regulation
    LET - Oppimisen ja koulutusteknologian tutkimusyksikkö Jari Laru, 22.4.2009
  • 23. The key consequence is at design level: the purpose of a CSCL environment is not simply to enable collaboration across distance but to create condition in which effective group interactions are expected to occur
  • 24. Learning design example: Supporting small-group learning using multiple Web 2.0 tools: A case study in the higher education contex Jari Laru, Piia Naykki, Sanna Jarvela, Supporting small-group learning using multiple Web 2.0 tools: A case study in the higher education context, The Internet and Higher Education, In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 28 August 2011, ISSN 1096-7516, DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.004 Lecture Discussion Phototaking Blogging Lecture Discussion Phototaking Blogging Lecture Discussion Phototaking Blogging Week 1 Learning infrastructures Lecture Discussion Phototaking Blogging Lecture Discussion Phototaking Blogging Lecture Discussion Phototaking Blogging A.Ground B.Reflect Discussion (week 4) Discussion (week 9) Wikiwork (weeks 4-12) C.Conceptualize D. Reflect & elaborate E. Review & evaluate F. Co-construct knowledge Phases 1 day 6 days Collaborative Solo Collaborative Week 2 Learning communities Week 3 Metacognition Week 6 Self-regulated learning Week 7 Learning design Week 8 Social media in learning 1 day G.monitor
  • 25. 5. Media effectiviness is a myth
  • 26.
    • ” … This is perhaps not surprising because the same claims have been made about every new technology developed in the last century. For example, when the motion picture, radio, and television were invented, each was hailed as answer to solving educational problems ” (Heinich, 1979; Cuban, 1986; Mayer, 1999).
    • ” Instructional methods make the difference in how well students learn, not the message or the delivery technology ” (Clark, 1983)
    Over-expectations with to respect to its intrinsic effects on learning
  • 27. LET - Oppimisen ja koulutusteknologian tutkimusyksikkö Jari Laru, 22.4.2009
  • 28. Example: FLE3mobile & mlearning Overall, the analyses revealed nonparticipative behaviour within the online community . The social network analysis revealed structural holes and sparse collaboration among participants in the offline community. It was found that due to their separated practices in the offline community, they did not have a need for mobile collaboration tools in their practices Laru, J. & Jarvela, S. (2008). Social Patterns in Mobile Technology Mediated Collaboration among Members of the Professional Distance Education Community. Educational Media International, 45(1), 17-32
  • 29. 6.What matters is the effort required to construct shared knowledge
  • 30. Key question for CSCL:
    • How do learners build a shared understanding of the task to be accomplished?
    • CSCL definition: “ Roschelle & Teasley (1995) defined collaborative learning as the co-construction of shared understanding ”
    • => Grounding: it refers to the mechanisms by which two interlocutors detect whether their partner has understood what they meant and repair eventual misunderstandings
  • 31. do not take it simplistically
    • peer never build a fully shared understanding
    • => through phases of convergence, pairs find out new differences of viewpoints that they may need overcome, and so forth
    • during cycle of divergence / convergence phases, what matters is not only final result but also effort towards shared under understanding (swartch, 1995)
  • 32. increase the effort..
    • ..Increase the initial divergence among students and hence increase the effort to build a joint solution
    • CSCL scripts, e.g. arguegraph, jigsaw
    Jigsaw Arguegraph
  • 33. CSCL Environments..
    • ..combine divergence and convergence functionalities: e.g. shared representations and visual identification of individual contributions or viewpoints (awareness tools)
    Group awareness widget, Kreijns, kirchner & johchems (2002) Mindmap tool as shared representation: Näykki & Järvelä (2008).
  • 34. Case Flyers & fieldtrip A B C D S ending off Story Snippet Story snippet 1 B A Story snippet 1 1/1 Story snippet text Grounding T ask Iintroduction Task feedback Conclusion S nippet types Group 1 Other groups Laru, J., Järvelä, S. & Clariana, R. B. (2010). Supporting collaborative inquiry during a biology field trip with mobile peer-to-peer tools for learning: a case study with K-12 learners. Interactive Learning Environments Subject : research question Group: name, task: # Caim: We claim Ground : Because we see Warrant: textbook says I mage placed here Research question Other research qu.. D ate / time D ate / time Story snippet 1 D ate / time Research question D ate / time
  • 35. 7. Greater resemblance to face-to-face interaction is not necessarily better
  • 36. Imitation bias
    • “ is the belief that the more a medium resembles face-to-face interaction, the better ” (Hollan & Stornetta, 1992)
    • Media richness is also erranously considered to predit effectiviness, despite empirical counter-evidence:
        • video-supported collaborative work vs. audio-only collaborative work. => not necessarily better
  • 37. Example of media effectiviness Traditional virtual learning environments - e.g. Optima & Blackboard
  • 38. ..Actually, technology benefits are elsewhere
    • CSCL Question is no longer “ how to compensate for not being face-to-face ” (~ was topic 20 years ago)
    • Now it is “ How to fulfil collaborative functionalities that are not available in face-to-face situations ” (Haake, 2006)
  • 39. ..new features apply to: 1. computer mediated communication
    • making it different from face-to-face
    Future Learning Environment 3 - fle3.uiah.fi nstudy - http://learningkit.sfu.ca/lucb/celc-2009-nStudy.pdf Gstudy / Learning Kit - http://learningkit.sfu.ca/index.html nstudy ohjeita (LET) - http://www.slideshare.net/LEToulu/ohjeet-nstudy
  • 40. ..new features apply to: 2. augmenting face-to-face situations Tinkertable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSwuyM4WkN4 Tinkersheets : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bms4_i9DI2g&feature=related “ Traditional learning technologies fit with students who sit on a chair in front of a table with a computer in a quiet environment. What is the potential of learning technologies for students who move all the time, carry objects, may have dirty hands and work in a noisy environment? Are learning technologies irrelevant for them or should we develop new ways to use technologies that are more appropriate to these contexts? ” Leading House - DUAL T project: Integrating technologies in heterogeneous contexts, CRAFT-EPFL Switzerland
  • 41. ..new features apply to: 2. augmenting face-to-face situations http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxdoKsjQbyw
  • 42. Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (2002). A walk on the WILD side: how wireless handhelds may change CSCL, 51-60. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1658616.1658624 2002 “ His 2002 paper with Roy Pea, "Walk on the Wild Side," has been influential in understanding the future possibilities for wireless handheld learning devices”
  • 43. ONE-TO-ONE TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNING http://www.flickr.com/photos/olpc/3038680654/ Chan, T.-W., Roschelle, J., Hsi, S., Kinshuk, K., BROWN, T., Brown, T., Patton, C., et al. (2006). One-to-one technology-enhanced learning: an opportunity for global research collaboration. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 1-26. Retrieved from http://www.worldscinet.com/abstract?id=pii:S1793206806000032
  • 44.  
  • 45. 8. Task representations mediate verbal interactions
  • 46. Representations & verbal interactions
    • The way representations shape social interactions is referred to by Suthers and Hundhausen (2003) as “ representational guidance ”
    • such cognitive tools not only shape social interactions but, if they get internalized, also shape the way students reason about the domain (Kuutti & Kaptelin, 1997)
  • 47. Examples I Beldevere argumentation tool - Suthers, Weiner, Connelly & Paolucci, 1995 Microworlds - Roschelle & Teasley, 1995
  • 48. Examples II
  • 49. 9. Structuring communication is a subtle compromise
  • 50. Semi-structured interfaces
    • Semi-structured communication tools aim to scaffold productive interactions by making them easier: for instance “ sentence openers ” , such as “ please explain why ”
    • It ’ s example of flexible structuring - students have freedom to use or not to use the available widgets
    • Poor results (e.g. Baker & Lund, 1997)
  • 51. Solution: CSCL scripts Scripts originate from the fact that it is difficult to predict the effects of collaborative learning by controlling external conditions such as group composition or task features. Actually, the effects of collaborative learning depend on the quality of interactions that take place among group members. Therefore, scripts aim to enhance the probability that knowledge generative interactions such as conflict resolution, explanation or mutual regulation occur during the collaboration process.
  • 52. Different scripts
    • A macro-script sets up conditions in which argumentation should occur, as in the ArgueGraph, for instance by pairing students with opposite opinions.
    • A micro-script scaffolds the interaction process per se: when a learner brings an argument, the script will for instance prompt his or her peer to state a counter-argument (Kollar et al, in press )
    • For both micro- and macro-scripts, the right level of scaffolding is a subtle compromise between the need for structuring and the risk of over-scripting (dillenbourg, 2002)
  • 53. Arguegraph script
  • 54. 10. Interaction analysis can be partly automated
  • 55.
    • The degree of processing of these interactions varies from mirroring to guiding (Jermann, Soller & Muhlenbrock, 2001)
  • 56. Mirroring: noise sensitive table
    • The table, Reflect, addresses the issue of unbalanced participation during group discussions. By displaying on its surface a shared visualization of member participation, Reflect is meant to encourage participants to avoid the extremes of over- and under-participation.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN3ltvIERD4 An Interactive Table for Supporting Participation Balance in Face-to-Face Collaborative Learning Bachour, Khaled ; Kaplan, Frédéri c ; Dillenbourg, Pierre   Accepted in : IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 2010 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2010. ISSN: 1939-1382
  • 57. Guiding
    • More complex analyses enable CSCL environments provide feedback to groups or even to suggest changes regarding to their teamwork
    Towards an Automatic Measure of Transactivity in On-line Discussions Puntambekar, Sadhana; Erkens, Gijsbert; Hmelo-Silver, Cindy (Eds.) Analyzing Interactions in CSCL Methods, Approaches and Issues- Series: Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series , Vol. 100 1st Edition., 2010, 400 p. 50 illus., Hardcover ISBN: 978-1-4419-7709-0 Due: January 29, 2011 AI techniques (such as planning, machine learning, intelligent agent approaches, semantic web techniques, and others) have been proposed to tackle the challenging issues emerging when trying to model and manage the complexity of the collaborative learning activity. text, videos etc log-data methods
  • 58. 11. There is a shift from personal to interpersonal computers
  • 59. 2008: interpersonal computers http://www.slideshare.net/larux/3-luento-tieto-ja-viestinttekniikan-pedagogiset-perusteet-tietokoneavusteinen-yhteisllinen-oppiminen-cscl http://www.fkaplan.com/file/caif-interpersonal.doc Kaplan, F., DoLenh, S., Bachour, K., Kao, G. Y.-ing, Gault, C., Dillenbourg, P., Huang, J., et al. (2009). Interactive Artifacts and Furniture Supporting Collaborative Work and Learning (Vol. 10, pp. 1-17). Boston, MA: Springer US. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/uxr3q7t022751275/
  • 60. Roomware Tangibles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5GWUx3ZSMw Tangibles Phidgets Wearables http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hXM6paYOME http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UPiFeJhwS4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmLU4GS7zAI
  • 61. Multi-input devices Computers with multiple mices Pawar, U. S., Pal, J., & Toyama, K. (2006). Multiple mice for computers in education in developing countries. In Proceedings of IEEE/ACM ICTD 2006. http://www.webtlk.com/2008/12/19/how-to-install-multiple-mice-mouse-and-keyboards-on-the-same-computer/ First axis: phidgets, tangibles, wearables, roomware
  • 62. Tangible objects & interfaces http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UPiFeJhwS4 First axis: phidgets, tangibles, wearables, roomware
  • 63. Roomware http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baDJNtBT1Fg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U05WeXPGlk First axis: phidgets, tangibles, wearables, roomware
  • 64. Mobiles & phidgets Second Axis: Location based mobile technologies http://vimeo.com/11739878
  • 65. Conclusions
  • 66. Summary
    • CSCL environment is not simply a tool to support communication among remote students but a tool used in both co-presence and distance settings for shaping verbal interactions in several ways and for capturing, analyzing and mirroring these interactions in realtime
  • 67. CSCL in short From PPT by Jermann, P. Scripting collaboration with ManyScripts http://manyscripts.epfl.ch/
  • 68. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLC8Ew8J9Hg
  • 69. Kysymyksiä / tehtäviä pohdittavaksi (vaihtoehtoisia)
    • Millaisia kokemuksia sinulla on tietokoneavusteisesta yhteisöllisestä oppimisesta oppilaana tai opettajana? Kerro toteutuksesta ja pohdi mitä olisit tehnyt ehkä toisin/mikä onnistui
    • Kirjoita omin sanoin tiivistelmä mitä tietokoneavusteinen yhteisöllinen oppiminen (CSCL) on käyttäen hyväksesi tätä luentomateriaalia
    • Visioi hieman tulevaisuutta hyödyntäen luentomateriaalia. Millaista on yhteisöllinen oppiminen vuonna 2030?