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.

Evaluating How Students would use a Collaborative Linked Learning Space

329 views

Published on

Presentation at ITiCSE 2011. Related paper can be retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1999747.1999774

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Evaluating How Students would use a Collaborative Linked Learning Space

  1. 1. Evalua&ng  how  students  would  use  a  Collabora&ve  Linked  Learning  Space Kai  Michael  Höver Michael  Hartle Guido  Rößling Max  Mühlhäuser Technische  Universität  Darmstadt        
  2. 2. Outline1)  Mo@va@on  for  CLLS  (Collabora@ve  Linked  Learning  Space)2)  Demo  of  CLLS3)  User  study  results Telecoopera@on 2
  3. 3. Students‘  usage  of  addi&onal  learning   resources  Previously  conducted  survey  with  104  CS  students  [1]   Students  use  the  Web  for  learning,  especially   Wikipedia   Google  to  find  learning  resources   Forum  discussions[1] Höver, K.M., Rößling, G. & Mühlhäuser, M., 2010, DeLFI 2010: Die 8. e-Learning Fachtagung Informatik der Gesellschaft für Informatike.V, Studierende, das Web und Vorlesungsaufzeichnungen. GI Telecoopera@on 3
  4. 4. Students  use  Google:Google  trends  sta&s&cs  for  „Quicksort“ Start  of   End  of   Start  of   summer   summer   winter   term term term Telecoopera@on 4
  5. 5. Example contradicts explains Diagram Wikipedia article illustrates Q&A Forum discussion Lecture MaterialDiagram Telecoopera@on 5
  6. 6. Problem  Students  use  a  broad  variety  of  different  learning   resources.  However,  these  learning  resources  are  not  explicitly   interlinked  with  each  other  (may  be  only  in  a  student‘s   mind) ➡  they  cannot  be  shared ➡  can  hardly  be  retrieved   Telecoopera@on 6
  7. 7. Focus  of  the  survey  Ques@ons  for  students:   How  do  students  assess  the  opportunity  to  link  learning  resources  with  other   material  including  a  seman@c  descrip@on?   How  do  students  assess  the  usability  of  CLLS?   Do  students  see  a  benefit  in  using  CLLS  and  how  would  they  use  it?  Ques@ons  for  educators:   How  do  educators  assess  the  opportunity  to  link  learning  resources  with  each   other  and  how  would  they  use  this?   Would  educators  use  such  a  system  for  their  courses?   Which  pros  and  cons  do  they  see? Telecoopera@on 8
  8. 8. Survey  Methodology  Semi-­‐structured  interviews  (ø  1.5h  each)   14  CS  students   6  CS  educators  Assessment  ques@ons   5-­‐point  Likert  scale   1  =  strongly  disagree  /  not  helpful   5  =  strongly  agree  /  very  helpful   Computa@on  of  arithme@c  mean  (AM)  and  standard  devia@on  (SD)   One-­‐sample  t-­‐tests  on  the  0.05  level Telecoopera@on 9
  9. 9. Survey  StructureA)  UsabilityB)  Linking  learning  resourcesC)  Sharing  learning  resourcesD)  Filtering  shared  learning  resourcesE)  Visualiza@onF)  Archiving  linked  learning  resources Telecoopera@on 10
  10. 10. Usability  System  Usability  Scale  test  [1]   Average  score  =  88  /  100   Standard  devia@on  =  4  Students  would  use  such  a  system  mainly  with   laptops   tablets  such  as  iPad   (mobile  devices  if        UI  is  appropriate)  Need  for  suppor@ng  different  OSs  and  devices[1] Brooke, J. (1996). SUS - A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry, 189-194. Telecoopera@on 11
  11. 11. Linking  learning  resources  Possibility  of  linking  learning  resources     Students:  AM=4.71,  SD=0.47;     Educators:   contradicts   for  themselves:  AM=4.5,  SD=0.84   for  students:  AM=4.83,  SD=0.41  Possibility  of  describing  the  seman@c  rela@on   Students:  AM=4.57,  SD=0.65  Educators:     for  themselves:  AM=3.67,  SD=0.52 explains   for  students:  AM=4.20,  SD=0.84 Telecoopera@on 12
  12. 12. Linking  learning  resources -­‐  Assessment  of  link  descrip6ons Students Educators explains 4,86 4,83example for 4,57 5 illustrates 4,14 4 also  important: 3,86 -­‐  prerequisite  for extends -­‐  ques0on  to 4,6contradicts 3,79 3,4 agrees 2,57 2,8 0 1 3 4 5 Telecoopera@on 13
  13. 13. Linking  learning  resources -­‐  Assessment  of  types  of  learning  resources Students Educators 5 Slide 5 4,93 PDF document 4,8 4,57 Website 4,8 4,5 Figure, diagram 4,4Wikipedia article 4,07 4,6 Furthermore: Forum post 3,64 -­‐ Anima2on 5 Video 3,57 -­‐ Source  Code 4,8 3,5Word proc. doc. 3,2 3,36 digital pen note 4 3,14Spreadsheet doc. 3,2 2,79 Chat message 3,8 2,64 Blog post 4,6 0 1 3 4 5 Telecoopera@on 14
  14. 14. Linking  learning  resources -­‐  detail  level  of  anchors  A  more  fine-­‐grained  level  than  on  the   document  level  is  important  Need  for  referencing   paragraphs,  sentences,  words   @mestamps,  periods  of  @me   code  snippets contradicts Telecoopera@on 15
  15. 15. Sharing  learning  resources  Students  already  share  created  or  found   learning  resources  with  fellow  students  by   eMail   Messenger   Web  storage Exchanging learning resources with CLLS Private links should is helpful be supported AM=4,71 (0,47) AM=2,93 (1,49) AM=4,67 (0,82) Telecoopera@on 16
  16. 16. Filtering  learning  resources Educator 5 Type 4,5 Chain of filters Semantic 4,36 is helpful ∅ Rating 4,14 AM=4.36 (0.93) Group/Person 3,21 Period of time 3 0 1 3 4 5 Telecoopera@on 17
  17. 17. Visualiza&on  A  graphical  representa@on  of  a  knowledge  graph  is  helpful   Students:    AM  =  4.0  (SD  =  0.88)   Educators:   for  themselves:  AM  =  3.8  (SD  =  0.84)   for  students:  AM  =  4.0  (SD  =  1.0)  Visualiza@on  approaches:  Different  shape  and  colors  for  different  kinds  of  resources  Different  sizes  and  distances  regarding  their  importance Telecoopera@on 18
  18. 18. Archiving  linked  learning  resources  Making  a  snapshot  is  helpful   Students:  AM  =  3.79  (SD  =  1.19)   Educators:  AM  =  4.6  (SD  =  0.55)  Making  copies  of  Web  resources  prevents  them  from  being   deleted  or  modified.   Telecoopera@on 19
  19. 19. Pros  &  Cons  Students:   Ac@ve  augmenta@on  of  learning  material   Everything  is  in  one  place  and  integrated   Exchange  of  learning  resources  Educators:   Possible  to  observe  students‘  ac@vi@es  outside  the  classroom   Recognize  possible  comprehension  difficul@es  of  students   Alterna@ve  or  addi@onal  representa@ons  of  the  lecture  material   Ac@ve  working  with  the  learning  material   Social  presence  Students  &  Educator  Cons:   online  only   spam Telecoopera@on 20
  20. 20. Future  work  Long  term  study  Integra@on  of  collabora@on  tools   and  social  networks  Support  of  fine-­‐grained  anchors  of   different  media  types  Visualiza@on  Archiving  the  learning  space Telecoopera@on 21
  21. 21. Thank  you  for  listening!  Ques&ons? Telecoopera@on 22

×