Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Collaborating to learn: Hope for the
best but prepare for the worst
Frank Fischer
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität
München
2
WISE Bell, Linn; Kollar, Fischer and Slotta (2005)
6
A case-based CSCL environment
(Weinberger, Stegmann & Fischer, 2003; 2011)
Individual analysis
Collaborative learning
Video Cases in Teacher Education
Simulation-based learning in medical education:
Crisis Resource Management Skills
Jan Zottmann, Peter Dieckmann,
Marcus Ra...
Simulation-Based Courses
with Video-Assisted Debriefing
• Hands-on simulation courses
– 2-3 active participants
– 8-10 liv...
Collaborative Observation Script for the „waiting“ participants
„Vicarious Learning“ (Stegmann et al., 2012)
Learning Partner A
Learning Partner B
Situational Conditions
Instructional support
Cognitive Processing Learning Outcomes
...
ICAP-model (Chi, 2009)
Rummel & Kollar (2014), Learning in social settings | Cognition 3.0 - the social mind in the connec...
ICAP hypothesis (Chi, 2009)
I > C > A > P
Social processes predictive for learning
• Explaining
– Explainers learn more than receivers of explanations
– Self-genera...
Social processes predictive for learning
• Thought-provoking questions (King, 2007)
– Go beyond factual and comprehension ...
Social processes predictive for learning
• Resolving cognitive discrepancies (Mugny &
Doise, 1978)
– Becoming aware of dif...
Social processes predictive for learning
• Argumentation (Andriessen et al., 2003)
– Argumentation as process of resolving...
Social processes predictive for learning
• Modeling of cognition (Collins et al., 1989)
– Learners who are good in questio...
Social processes predictive for learning
• (Peer-)Feedback on performance (Stribos et al., 2011)
– Better if criteria base...
Does it work spontaneously?
A case-based online discussion environment
(Weinberger, Stegmann & Fischer, 2003)
Online peer discussion (raw data)
Andrea:
Ich hab irgendwie den Überblick verloren! Sind wir uns
einig dass das ein internal stabiles Verhalten ist und das ...
28
• In line with
findings on
cooperative
learning (Gillies,
2009; Slavin
2000)
The two basic forms of pedagogical intervention in CSCL
Support self-regulation:
1. Cognitive awareness tools
2. Social aw...
Group awareness tools
 Idea: Groups are presented with information about themselves that may be relevant for
their group ...
A social group awareness tools
Dillenbourg et al. (2008)
Phielix et al., 2011
A cognitive group awareness tool
(Dehler, Bodemer,
Buder & Hesse, 2009)
Learning in social settings | Cognition 3.0 - the ...
Group awareness tools
 Group awareness tools as a “soft” method of facilitating collaborative learning, not
much interfer...
So what are collaboration scripts?
A collaboration script is a content-independent support
that…
– …prompts,
– …sequences,...
Internal Collaboration Script COMPONENTS
Play A
Scene
Role 1Scriptlet
Scene Scene
Partly based on Dynamic Memory model of ...
Visit at the dentist‘s
Say
goodbye
Treat-
ment
WaitEnter office Show
insurance card
Enter waiting
room (A)
Greet (A) Greet...
Visit at the lawyer‘s
Say
Goodbye
Counse-
ling
WaitEnter office
Enter waiting
room (A)
Greet (A) Greet (B) Scan magazines
...
What are internal collaboration scripts?
•Collaboration Scripts: knowledge structures that help
individuals to understand ...
External collaboration scripts
A case-based CSCL environment (Weinberger, Stegmann
& Fischer, 2003)
• Play level scaffold:
„Please discuss now (10 min)“
Constructive Critic:
Critique
Case Analyst: ReplyCase Analyst: Reply
Constructive Critic:
Critique
Case Analyst:
New Analy...
Scene level scaffolding
Scriptlet level scaffolding
Claim Warrant + Data
Qualifier
Claim
...
Warrant + Data
...
Qualifier
...
He believes he is no...
Fostering simulation-based learning in medical education with
collaboration scripts
Simulation-Based Courses with Video-As...
Collaborative Observation Script for the „waiting“ participants
„Vicarious Learning“ (Stegmann et al., 2012): S
cene and s...
Individual analysis
Collaborative learning
51
Scaffolding on scene and scriptlet level
Collab.
Script:
Individual
analysis
Joint
analysis
Individual
reflection
52WISE Bell, Linn; Kollar, Fischer and Slotta (2005)
So do they help?
• Meta-analysis on effects of studies using collaboration scripts in
CSCL (Vogel, Kollar, Wecker & Fische...
Results
k = 17
d = 0.29#
k = 22
d = 0.36*
Learning processes
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
outco...
Results
Effect sizes of single
studies for „social
quality during
learning process“
Internal Collaboration Script COMPONENTS
Play A
Scene
Role 1Scriptlet
Scene Scene
Dynamic Memory model of representation o...
What internal script level should
external scripts target?
What internal script level should be targeted by the
collaborat...
Effects on learning processes
Play level
Play level
Scene level
Scene level
Scriptlet level
Scriptlet level
-0,5
-0,4
-0,3...
Conclusion
• Prepare for the worst..
• For CL to be effective, not any kind of interaction is equally
instrumental:
• Inte...
Conclusion
• Sometimes, simple support of group self-regulation with
awareness tools can be enough
• Often, however, more ...
67
frank.fischer@psy.lmu.de
Thank you and thanks to all my collaborators
 Seminario eMadrid sobre "Inteligencia natural y artificial en educación".  Colaborar para aprender: ¿Esperar lo mejor per...
 Seminario eMadrid sobre "Inteligencia natural y artificial en educación".  Colaborar para aprender: ¿Esperar lo mejor per...
 Seminario eMadrid sobre "Inteligencia natural y artificial en educación".  Colaborar para aprender: ¿Esperar lo mejor per...
 Seminario eMadrid sobre "Inteligencia natural y artificial en educación".  Colaborar para aprender: ¿Esperar lo mejor per...
 Seminario eMadrid sobre "Inteligencia natural y artificial en educación".  Colaborar para aprender: ¿Esperar lo mejor per...
 Seminario eMadrid sobre "Inteligencia natural y artificial en educación".  Colaborar para aprender: ¿Esperar lo mejor per...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

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.

373 views

Published on

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.

Published in: Education
  • Sports Insiders secret ZCode software beats the bookies? ★★★ http://scamcb.com/zcodesys/pdf
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

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. 1. Collaborating to learn: Hope for the best but prepare for the worst Frank Fischer Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
  2. 2. 2
  3. 3. WISE Bell, Linn; Kollar, Fischer and Slotta (2005)
  4. 4. 6
  5. 5. A case-based CSCL environment (Weinberger, Stegmann & Fischer, 2003; 2011)
  6. 6. Individual analysis Collaborative learning Video Cases in Teacher Education
  7. 7. Simulation-based learning in medical education: Crisis Resource Management Skills Jan Zottmann, Peter Dieckmann, Marcus Rall, Frank Fischer & Tatjana Taraszow (2009; subm.)
  8. 8. Simulation-Based Courses with Video-Assisted Debriefing • Hands-on simulation courses – 2-3 active participants – 8-10 live observing participants
  9. 9. Collaborative Observation Script for the „waiting“ participants „Vicarious Learning“ (Stegmann et al., 2012)
  10. 10. 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)
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. ICAP hypothesis (Chi, 2009) I > C > A > P
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. 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)
  16. 16. 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.
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 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)
  19. 19. Does it work spontaneously?
  20. 20. A case-based online discussion environment (Weinberger, Stegmann & Fischer, 2003)
  21. 21. Online peer discussion (raw data)
  22. 22. 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
  23. 23. 28 • In line with findings on cooperative learning (Gillies, 2009; Slavin 2000)
  24. 24. 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)
  25. 25. 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
  26. 26. A social group awareness tools Dillenbourg et al. (2008) Phielix et al., 2011
  27. 27. 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
  28. 28. 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
  29. 29. 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
  30. 30. 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
  31. 31. 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
  32. 32. 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
  33. 33. 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.
  34. 34. External collaboration scripts
  35. 35. A case-based CSCL environment (Weinberger, Stegmann & Fischer, 2003)
  36. 36. • Play level scaffold: „Please discuss now (10 min)“
  37. 37. 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
  38. 38. Scene level scaffolding
  39. 39. 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.
  40. 40. 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.)
  41. 41. Collaborative Observation Script for the „waiting“ participants „Vicarious Learning“ (Stegmann et al., 2012): S cene and scriptlet level scaffolding
  42. 42. Individual analysis Collaborative learning
  43. 43. 51 Scaffolding on scene and scriptlet level Collab. Script: Individual analysis Joint analysis Individual reflection
  44. 44. 52WISE Bell, Linn; Kollar, Fischer and Slotta (2005)
  45. 45. 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
  46. 46. Results k = 17 d = 0.29# k = 22 d = 0.36* Learning processes
  47. 47. 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
  48. 48. Results Effect sizes of single studies for „social quality during learning process“
  49. 49. 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
  50. 50. 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
  51. 51. 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
  52. 52. 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
  53. 53. 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)
  54. 54. 67 frank.fischer@psy.lmu.de Thank you and thanks to all my collaborators

×