Socially Shared Metacognition in CSCL Planning
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Socially Shared Metacognition in CSCL Planning

on

  • 1,425 views

Socially Shared Metacognition: Convergence & Divergence in CSCL Planning...

Socially Shared Metacognition: Convergence & Divergence in CSCL Planning

Allyson Hadwin, Mariel Miller, Elizabeth Webster, Philip Winne

Paper presented at the EARLI 2011, Exeter, UK

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,425
Views on SlideShare
756
Embed Views
669

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

2 Embeds 669

http://allysonhadwin.wordpress.com 665
http://marielmiller.wordpress.com 4

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • (SANNA ED PSYCH SPECIAL ISSUE W KIRSCHNER) - Jigsaw
  • Add in definition boxes that appear (with greyed out non-applicable information)
  • Add in definition boxes that appear (with greyed out non-applicable information)
  • Add in definition boxes that appear (with greyed out non-applicable information)
  • Add in definition boxes that appear (with greyed out non-applicable information)
  • Next we tested the SSRL negotiation index in 4 cases… Group work took place within the context of ED-D 101 - undergrad course at the univeristy of UVIC. Coursework included Collaboration in this pilot study took place in the strategy library assignment.
  • Results Explicit: Convergence, Diveregence , Emergence, Scores, SSRL, Task Performance - EXAMPLE Results Implicit: (Rank order correlation in Mann Whitney?) Does SPSS correlate the rank?
  • Results Explicit: Convergence, Diveregence , Emergence, Scores, SSRL, Task Performance - EXAMPLE Results Implicit: (Rank order correlation in Mann Whitney?) Does SPSS correlate the rank?
  • Results Explicit: Convergence, Diveregence , Emergence, Scores, SSRL, Task Performance - EXAMPLE Results Implicit: (Rank order correlation in Mann Whitney?) Does SPSS correlate the rank?

Socially Shared Metacognition in CSCL Planning Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Socially Shared Metacognition: Convergence & Divergence in CSCL Planning Allyson Fiona Hadwin, Mariel Miller, Elizabeth Webster University of Victoria, BC, Canada Philip H. Winne Simon Fraser University, BC, Canada University of Victoria Technology Integration & Evaluation Research Lab Research was funded by a SSHRC Standard Research Grant 410-2008-0700 (A. Hadwin)
  • 2. Socially Shared Metacognition: Convergence & Divergence in CSCL Planning
    • Purpose:
      • Explore theory driven methods for measuring socially shared regulation in collaborative tasks
    • Objectives
      • Define socially shared regulation (SSRL)
      • Introduce SSRL Negotiation Index for scoring aspects of socially shared regulated learning in collaborative tasks
      • Test viabiliy of this index on test cases representing different patterns of SSRL
      • Pilot index in four cases of group planning in an undergraduate collaborative task
  • 3. What is Collaboration?
    • Coordinated and mutually interdependent work
    • Moving toward a shared goal - joint task
    • Leverages individual’s unique & distributed knowledge/expertise
    • Achieves something beyond what any individual could achieve alone
    • ( Dillenbourg, 1999; Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Rochelle & Teasley, 1995, etc)
  • 4. Theoretically Successful Collaboration Involves CORL CoRL Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) Each team member regulates his/her strategic engagement Socially Shared Regulation (SSRL) Interdependent or collective regulation of group processes and successful coordination of strategies Builds on Winne & Hadwin, 1998 model of SRL SRL SSRL
  • 5. Planning involves: Phase 1: Developing task perceptions What & Why Phase 2: Constructing Goals/Standards Students SRL By constructing These perceptions & goals Students SSRL By negotiating perceptions & goals
  • 6. Theoretically, Planning (Task perceptions & Goals) should...
    • Set students up for regulatory success
    • Create standards for monitoring and regulating collaboration
    • Leverage distributed expertise
    • Extend distributed expertise
  • 7. Example Task Perception The purpose of this collaborative writing assignment is…
    • Negotiated Team Perception
    • use what we have learned in the course so far
    • construct thesis statement
    • incorporate logical arguments
    • learn to collaborate as a group
    Student 2 a. use what we have learned in the course c. Incorporate logical arguments Student 3 a. use what we have learned in the course e. Justify with clear examples Student 1 a. use what we have learned in the course b. Construct thesis statement
  • 8. Evaluating SSRL Convergence # of idea units in individuals’ perceptions that teams include in the shared group perception via negotiation
    • Negotiated Team Perception
    • use what we have learned in the course so far
    • construct thesis statement
    • incorporate logical arguments
    • learn to collaborate as a group
    Student 2 a. use what we have learned in the course c. Incorporate logical arguments Student 3 a. use what we have learned in the course e. Justify with clear examples Student 1 a. use what we have learned in the course b. Construct thesis statement
  • 9. Evaluating SSRL Divergence # of idea units in individuals’ answers not included in teams’ shared perceptions and not included in the negotiation process
    • Negotiated Team Perception
    • use what we have learned in the course so far
    • construct thesis statement
    • incorporate logical arguments
    • learn to collaborate as a group
    Student 2 a. use what we have learned in the course c. Incorporate logical arguments Student 3 a. use what we have learned in the course e. Justify with clear examples Student 1 a. use what we have learned in the course b. Construct thesis statement
  • 10. Evaluating SSRL Emergence # of idea units in team shared perceptions that appear during negotiation and are not included individuals’ perceptions
    • Negotiated Team Perception
    • use what we have learned in the course so far
    • construct thesis statement
    • incorporate logical arguments
    • learn to collaborate as a group
    Student 2 a. use what we have learned in the course c. Incorporate logical arguments Student 3 a. use what we have learned in the course e. Justify with clear examples Student 1 a. use what we have learned in the course b. Construct thesis statement
  • 11. SSRL Negotiation Index Number of idea units in shared team perceptions Emergence =  idea units in team shared perceptions that appear during negotiation and are not included individuals’ perceptions Divergence =  idea units in individuals’ answers not included in teams’ shared perceptions and not included in the negotiation process Convergence =  idea units in individuals’ perceptions that teams include in the shared group perception via negotiation Number of team members C - D N + ( ) E K
  • 12. We hypothesize that… Low SSRL Negotation Index for Task Perceptions Low SSRL Negotiation Index for Team goals Limited opportunities for Monitoring, evaluating & regulating team strategies Weaker Team Task Performance
  • 13. Negotiation Index: Theoretical Examples Emergence Divergence Convergence 11 theoretical examples of individual vs. group responses in SSRL planning Each letter represents 1 idea unit Team Response Member 1 Member 2 Member 3 A a bcde a bcde a bcde A b c d ABD ab c d e abd e ab c d e AB c d e ABCD ab cd ad ABC DE a b c ABCD abcd ab cd ABDE abe ab abcde ABDE abde abde abde ABCDE abcde abcde abcde AB C D E abd abd abd
  • 14. Negotiation Index: Theoretical Example Emergence Divergence Convergence Team Response Member 1 Member 2 Member 3 CON A a bcde a bcde a bcde 1+1+1 A b c d 0 ABD ab c d e abd e ab c d e 3+3+3 AB c d e 0 ABCD ab cd ad 2+2+2 ABC DE a b c 1+1+1 ABCD abcd ab cd 4+2+2 ABDE abe ab ab c de 3+2+4 ABDE abde abde abde 4+4+4 ABCDE abcde abcde abcde 5+5+5 AB C D E abd abd abd 3+3+3
  • 15. Negotiation Index: Theoretical Example Emergence Divergence Convergence Team Response Member 1 Member 2 Member 3 CON DIV A a bcde a bcde a bcde 1+1+1 4+4+4 A b c d 0 1+1+1 ABD ab c d e abd e ab c d e 3+3+3 2+1+2 AB c d e 0 1+1+1 ABCD ab cd ad 2+2+2 0 ABC DE a b c 1+1+1 0 ABCD abcd ab cd 4+2+2 0 ABDE abe ab ab c de 3+2+4 1 ABDE abde abde abde 4+4+4 0 ABCDE abcde abcde abcde 5+5+5 0 AB C D E abd abd abd 3+3+3 0
  • 16. Negotiation Index: Theoretical Example Emergence Divergence Convergence Team Response Member 1 Member 2 Member 3 CON DIV EMER A a bcde a bcde a bcde 1+1+1 4+4+4 0 A b c d 0 1+1+1 1 ABD ab c d e abd e ab c d e 3+3+3 2+1+2 0 AB c d e 0 1+1+1 2 ABCD ab cd ad 2+2+2 0 0 ABC DE a b c 1+1+1 0 2 ABCD abcd ab cd 4+2+2 0 0 ABDE abe ab ab c de 3+2+4 1 0 ABDE abde abde abde 4+4+4 0 0 ABCDE abcde abcde abcde 5+5+5 0 0 AB C D E abd abd abd 3+3+3 0 2
  • 17. Negotiation Index: Theoretical Example Emergence Divergence Convergence Team Response Member 1 Member 2 Member 3 CON DIV EMER Index A a bcde a bcde a bcde 1+1+1 4+4+4 0 -3.00 A b c d 0 1+1+1 1 0.00 ABD ab c d e abd e ab c d e 3+3+3 2+1+2 0 0.44 AB c d e 0 1+1+1 2 0.50 ABCD ab cd ad 2+2+2 0 0 0.50 ABC DE a b c 1+1+1 0 2 0.60 ABCD abcd ab cd 4+2+2 0 0 0.67 ABDE abe ab ab c de 3+2+4 1 0 0.75 ABDE abde abde abde 4+4+4 0 0 0.92 ABCDE abcde abcde abcde 5+5+5 0 0 1.00 AB C D E abd abd abd 3+3+3 0 2 1.00
  • 18. Now lets look at a real case example
    • Research Context
    • Undergraduate course (ED-D 101) support students in becoming self-regulated learners.
    • Coursework included Major Collaborative Assignments
      • Strategy Library Assignment: Co-construct 5 strategies, justify with course concepts, experiment & evaluate strategies in real learning activities
  • 19. Participants
    • 12 undergraduate students (ED-D 101)
    • 7 male, 5 female; Mean age = 19.2; SD = 2.02
    • 4 collaborative course assignment groups (n=3)
  • 20.
    • Personal Planning Tool (PPT)
    • Shared Planning Tool (SPT)
    • Individual Planning Collaborative task
      • What are we being asked to do?
      • What is the purpose of this assignment?
      • What is my goal for this assignment
    Measures & Data Collection
    • Team Planning for current collaborative task
      • What are we being asked to do?
      • What is the purpose of this assignment?
      • What is our goal for this assignment
  • 21. SSRL negotiation index
    • Profiles of strengths and weaknesses within a group in terms of their negotiation of shared regulation
    • Overall these index scores were good (all positive)
    Table 1. SSRL negotiation scores and task performance for each group What? SSRL –TP Index Why? SSRL-TP Index Goals SSRL Index Total Planning Index Task Performance (100) Team 1 .91 .83 .83 2.57 90.0 Team 2 1.00 .67 .50 2.17 68.52 Team 3 .92 .91 1.00 2.83 81.48 Team 4 .78 .67 .78 2.23 46.29
  • 22. Team negotiation of Task Purpose Perceptions Emergence Divergence Convergence
    • Strong positive negotiation scores occur when there is high convergence (and/or emergence) and an absence of divergence from individual to shared perceptions
    • All 4 groups converge on the same task perception,
    • Within groups there was distributed TP expertise each member brought to team negotiations
    Group Response Member 1 Member 2 Member 3 CON DIV EMER Index 1 ABCD abc bcd abcd 4+3+4 0+0+0 0 .833 2 ABCD bc bc abcd 2+2+4 0+0+0 0 .667 3 ABCD abcd abc abcd 4+3+4 0+0+0 0 .917 4 ABCD bc bd abcd 2+2+4 0+0+0 0 .667
  • 23. Task Perceptions:–Team 1 Why are you being asked to do this?
    • A Build collaboration skills & knowledge
    • B Learn new strategies
    • C Apply strategies to real learning
    • Monitor & Evaluate strategies
    Con = 10 Div = 0 Em = 0 SSRL = .833 a-b-c-d a-b-c b-c-d Member 1 Member 2 Member 3 Team Response The purpose for this assignment is to engage us in the what we have learned in the course thus far, and use these techniques to construct our own strategies that may be more specific to our ways of learning. It will help us to work collaboratively as a group, as well as help us in other courses and future academic success by using these strategies . The purpose of this assignment is to encourage us to construct our own learning strategies, test them out , choose between multiple ones and find the one that works best for us, and then apply what we have learned into our school work and improve our learning experience as a whole. I am being asked to do this assignment so that I can learn to collaborate more effectively within a group. By coming up with my own learning strategies , I am broadening my understanding of basic learning strategies, and more apt to apply them effectively to my own life. Also, I can develop my skills of systematically weighing the pros and cons of each learning strategy to deem it effective or not.
  • 24. Team negotiation of task goals Emergence Divergence Convergence
    • Strong positive negotiation scores occur when there is high convergence (and/or emergence) and an absence of divergence from individual to shared perceptions
    • Breadth of idea units in negotiated team goals varies greatly
    Group Response Member 1 Member 2 Member 3 CON DIV EMER Index 1 AB CE ce ce c d e f 2+2+2 0+0+2 2 .83 2 BCEG c bc ceg 1+2+3 0+0+0 0 .50 3 CE ce ce ce 2+2+2 0+0+0 0 1.00 4 CDE ce ce cde 2+2+3 0+0+0 0 .78
  • 25. Task Goal – Team 2 B. Good grade/ Good Assignment C. Learn new strategies E. Experiment /try strategies strategies G. Find/create strategies that work for others c-e-g c b-c Member 1 Member 2 Member 3 Team Response I want to learn the best way for me to prepare for tests. Furthermore, I tend find my self cramming for an exam. So, not having to do that and learn how to properly schedule my preparation. I want to be able to identify different learning strategies and be able to know which situations best fit which strategy. I also want to be able to create a solid sample scenario with my group mates. From this assignment I want to come up with a great strategy that suit me very well also very effective. In this way, I will know what kind of strategy is best for me and what is not working. Hopefully, the strategy that I find is also effective to others too so that other people can be benefit by using my strategy. Con = 6 Div = 0 Em = 0 SSRL = .50
  • 26. What is the value of the negotiation index?
    • Our approach to studying SSRL acknowledges that successful collaborative work involves productively regulating across all 3 forms of regulation (self-regulation, co-regulation, and shared regulation)
    • Although results are preliminary, SSRL Negotiation Index offers one method of capturing dynamic process of becoming a team
      • Negotiating consensus & co-constructing shared metacognitive knowledge for the task amongst individuals in a group
      • Degree to which groups co-construct shared metacognitive planning knowledge may vary in terms of convergence, divergence, emergence
  • 27. What is the value of the negotiation index?
    • Potential to identify areas of shared-regulation strength and weakness within a group
    • Trigger design of supports and scripts to help groups refine regulation in those weaker regulatory areas.
  • 28. What is missing?
    • The index does not account for
        • Accuracy and completeness of negotiated task perceptions
        • Quality of team goal
        • For example, in the table below, teams identified 3-4 key ideas about the task requirements, however, there were actually 5 key ideas expressed by the teacher
    Group Response Member 1 Member 2 Member 3 CON DIV EMER Index 1 ABCD abcd abc abcd 4+3+4 0+0+0 0 .917 2 ABCD abcd abcd abcd 4+4+4 0+0+0 0 1.00 3 ABCD abcd abc abcd 4+3+4 0+0+0 0 .917 4 ABC ab ab abc 2+2+3 0+0+0 0 .778
  • 29. … What is missing?
    • Treats all divergent ideas as “negative”. What about ideas that are discussed and negotiated to be dropped by the team?
    • To distinguish those “false divergent” ideas you need to examine the team’s negotiation dialogue
        • Did the individual not share the idea (divergence)
        • Did they discuss and decide to exclude the idea as a team (a type of convergence)
  • 30. Future Directions
    • Validation of SSRL Negotiation Index
      • Larger sample, variety of task contexts
      • Multiple data sources (including chat records)
      • Relationship to factors such as collaborative challenges, quality of task enactment and performance, change over time
  • 31. END [email_address] [email_address]