Orchestrating learning: survey

CHAIR FOR EMPIRICAL EDUCATION AND
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

„Orchestrating Learning“ from an
Educational Psychology Perspective
-
Conceptual, theoretical, and
empirical considerations

Ingo Kollar
Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany

06/08/2010
Stellar Summer School on Technology-Enhanced Learning
6/8/2010 1


Early promises and hopes of (educational
and psychological) research on TEL:
• Computers enable individuals and groups to
become self-regulated learners

• Computers can make teachers superfluous

• Distance education will replace schools and
universities

6/8/2010 2


But…
• Learners‘ problems with self-regulated learning seem to
be amplified when learning with computers („lost in
hyperspace“; Dillon & Gabbard, 1998)

• Teachers are still there

• Schools and universities are still there

• (However, distance learning is also there, I admit…)

6/8/2010 3


Viewing the role of computer technologies
from an educational psychology perspective
• „Media will never influence learning“ (Clark, 1994)

• Computer technologies should…
– …be appropriately embedded into existing learning situations,
– …help to appropriately structure learning activities,
– …leave the role of the orchestrator to the teacher and support her
in this job.

• No primacy of computer technologies, but instead of
scientific knowledge about learning and instruction!

6/8/2010 4


So what is it that needs to be
„orchestrated“?
• Learning processes occuring on different social
planes
• Scaffolds aiming at structuring/supporting
learning processes on different social planes
• Technology-supported and face-to-face learning
processes
• Self-regulated and externally regulated learning
processes
(see Dillenbourg, Järvelä & Fischer, 2009)
6/8/2010 5


Promises of computer technologies
for „orchestrating learning“
• Computer technologies may…
– …help distribute learning activities over the different
social planes (Dillenbourg & Jermann, 2007),
– …help scaffold learning activities on single social
planes („synergistic scaffolding“; Tabak, 2004),
– …support the transition from more externally
regulated to more self-regulated forms of learning
(e.g., through adaptivity and fading; Kollar & Fischer,
2006).

6/8/2010 6

Plenary

Ac
tiv
iti
es
Small group
Individual

6/8/2010 7

Plenary

Teacher Giving
modelling explanations Sc
af
fo
ld
Small group

Shared ext. Collaboration s
representations scripts
Individual

Worked out Reflection
examples prompts

6/8/2010 8


So how should activities and scaffolds be
orchestrated over the social planes?
• Suggestions can be derived from different
instructional approaches, e.g.:
– Reciprocal Teaching (Palincsar & Brown,
1984)
– Problem-based Learning (Hmelo, 2004)
– Learning by Design (Kolodner, 2007)
– ArgueGraph (Dillenbourg & Jermann, 2007)

6/8/2010 9


So how should activities and scaffolds be
orchestrated over the social planes?
• Suggestions can be derived from different
instructional approaches, e.g.:
– Reciprocal Teaching (Palincsar & Brown,
1984)
– Problem-based Learning (Hmelo, 2004)
– Learning by Design (Kolodner, 2007)
– ArgueGraph (Dillenbourg & Jermann, 2007)

6/8/2010 10


Reciprocal Teaching
(Palincsar & Brown, 1984)

6/8/2010 11


Reciprocal Teaching
• RT as one of the most prominent approaches to
structuring collaboration

• Originally developed as instructional intervention
for primary school students‘ acquisition of reading
competence

• Meanwhile: Adaptation of RT in many contexts
and age groups

6/8/2010 12


Reciprocal Teaching
• Procedure:
1. Teacher models four text comprehension strategies
(Questioning, Summarizing, Clarifying, Predicting)
in front of whole class
2. Individual reading phase
3. Formation of small groups (4 learners):
– Students take over and switch teacher role among them,
helping each other in the correct application of the
strategies
– Teacher gradually withdraws her support as students gain
more competence („fading“)

6/8/2010 13

Plenary
Small group
Individual

6/8/2010 14


Reciprocal Teaching
• Overwhelming evidence for the effectiveness of
Reciprocal Teaching compared to traditional
classroom learning and other programs
(Rosenshine & Meister, 1994)
• Strong effects in particular for low-achievers
• Positive effects on all grade levels from grade 3
– adult education

6/8/2010 15


ArgueGraph
(Dillenbourg & Jermann, 2007)

6/8/2010 16


ArgueGraph
• Procedure:
1. Individuals answer pre-defined questionnaire on a
controversial topic
2. Individual answers are presented and discussed in the plenary
3. Heterogeneous dyads based on the individual answers are
formed
4. Dyads answer questionnaire again and must agree on their
answers
5. Dyadic answers are presented and discussed and opinion
changes from individual to dyadic phase are made visible
6. Individuals summarize discussion outcomes on each single
question
6/8/2010 17

Plenary
Small group

Lernen ermöglicht dem
Menschen, sich an
Individual

dynamische Umwelten
anzupassen, darin
sinnvoll zu handeln und seine
kulturellen
Errungenschaften an
nachfolgende
Generationen weiterzugeben.
…

6/8/2010 18


ArgueGraph
• Instructional goals:
– (a) activation of learners‘ prior knowledge/opinions on a
controversial debate
– (b) production of socio-cognitive conflicts as a motor for
collaborative learning in small groups and on the plenary level
– (c) realization of a „macro script“ that distributes learning
activities over the three social planes of the classroom

• Empirical evidence for positive effects of ArgueGraph
compared to other instructional approaches is scarce

6/8/2010 19


In-between summary
• Instructional psychology offers approaches that
orchestrate activities and scaffolds over the different
social planes of the classroom – with and without TEL!

• Empirical evidence indicates positive effects of
distributing activities and scaffolds over the social planes
compared to other forms of classroom instruction

• But: little research that systematically disentagles the
effects of learning activities and scaffolds located at
different social planes and their combination

6/8/2010 20


Research project „IKS“
(Internet-Kompetenz an Schulen)

6/8/2010 21


Project information
• Located at LMU Munich
• Funded by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)
• Project investigators: Christof Wecker, Frank Fischer,
Ingo Kollar
• Main goal: Investigating effects of (computer-
supported) small group collaboration scripts and (non-
computer-supported) classroom scripts on acquisition
of Internet search competence in a 9th grade inquiry
curriculum

6/8/2010 22


Theoretical background
• Internet search competence as educational goal that is
an essential part of scientific literacy
• Scientific literacy as ability to participate in science-
related societal debates (e.g., Laugksch, 2000)
• Internet search competence comprises the ability to…
– …find relevant, scientifically valid and credible information that
matches a pre-defined evidence scheme
– …form well-grounded arguments based on this evidence
– …use these arguments in science-related debates.
• However, students‘ Internet search competence often is
suboptimal (e.g., Ikpeze & Boyd, 2007; Luconi &
Tabatabai, 1999)
6/8/2010 23


• Two promising ways to support students‘
acquisition of Internet search competence:

– Small group collaboration scripts that structure
learning activities on a small group level

– Classroom scripts that distribute learning activities
over the different social planes

6/8/2010 24


• Small group collaboration scripts…
– …specify and sequence learning activities and roles
among the members of a small group (Kollar et al.,
2006),
– …may effectively support learning processes (e.g.,
Stegmann, Weinberger, & Fischer, 2007,
– …typically help learners acquire domain-general
skills (e.g., argumentation competence; Kollar,
Fischer & Slotta, 2007),
– …have mostly been researched under lab conditions
employing short learning periods.
6/8/2010 25


• An example of a small group collaboration script
(O‘Donnell & Dansereau, 1992):
1. Two learners individually read a text paragraph
2. Learners put text aside
3. Learner A („recaller“) is supposed to recall all text information
4. Learner B („listener“) is supposed to listen to A‘s summary and
to identify omissions and misconceptions
5. Both learners jointly discuss how to make the text more
memorable
6. Both learners read the next paragraph and then switch roles
…

6/8/2010 26


• Classroom scripts as instructional interventions that
specify, sequence and distribute learning activities over
the different social planes of the classroom devices
for „orchestrating learning“
• Distributing learning activities over different social
planes as part of a number of instructional approaches
(Reciprocal Teaching, PBL…)
• Empirical evidence: distribution of learning activities
over the social planes of the classroom may lead to
more positive individual learning outcomes than other
kinds of classroom instruction (Rosenshine & Meister,
1994)

6/8/2010 27


Research questions
1. Can small group collaboration scripts be
designed to support high school students‘
acquisition of online search competence?
2. Do positive effects on domain-general
competences (e.g., Internet search
competence) also occur under field conditions
employing longer learning phases?
3. Can the effects of small-group collaboration
scripts be amplified by a classroom script that
distributes learning activities over the plenary
and the small group level?
6/8/2010 28


Method
• Participants: 174 9th grade students from five urban high schools
• Design:
Type of classroom script

Small group Alterations btw.
level only small group and
plenary level
Small group Without N = 43 students N = 28 students
collaboration (2 classes) (2 classes)
script With N = 52 students N = 51 students
(2 classes) (2 classes)
6/8/2010 29


Method
• 4.5 weeks curriculum on Genetic Engineering
• Each student was equipped with a laptop computer
• 3 cycles on different aspects of the topic:
– Economical aspects
– Ecological aspects
– Health-related aspects
• Each cycle consisted of 3 steps each:
– Gathering domain-specific information on genetics and genetic
engineering (Online project library)
– Collaborative online search
– Plenary discussion
6/8/2010 30


Lesson Phase
0 Pretest
1 Introduction and gathering background information (online project library)
2 Gathering background information (online project library)
3 Online search
4 Plenary discussion
Gathering background information (online project library)
5 Online search
Plenary discussion
6 Gathering background information (online project library)
7 Online search
Plenary discussion
8 Posttest 1
2-3 weeks later:
9 Posttest 2
6/8/2010 31


Method
• Both independent variables were realized
during the three online search phases
• Learners engaged in online search
processes basically as dyads
• Laptop computers were connected by a
software called S-COL (Wecker et al.,
accepted)

6/8/2010 32


Method
• Small group script split online search up into 5 phases:
1. Sketching initial argument and required information
2. Entering search terms
3. Evaluating hit list
4. Finding information on selected web page
5. Revision of initial argument

• Script prompts to distribute complementary activities and
roles among the members of a dyad:
– A: Executive role (e.g., „Make a suggestion what link to click on“)
– B: Metacognitive role (e.g., „Listen to your partner‘s suggestion
and estimate whether the proposed link is relevant and credible“)

6/8/2010 33


6/8/2010 34


Classroom script with online search processes on small
group level only

Plenary

... ...
Small group

Individual

t
Sketch of initial Evaluating hit list Revision of initial
argument argument
Entering Finding information on Discussion
search terms selected web site
6/8/2010 35


Classroom script with alterations between small group and
plenary level

Plenary

... ...
Small group

Individual

t
Sketch of initial Evaluating hit list Revision of initial
argument argument
Entering Finding information on Discussion
search terms selected web site
6/8/2010 36


Method
• Dependent variable: Online search competence (post
test)
• Operationalization: Test that asked students
(individually) to describe how they would proceed when
being asked to use the Internet for forming a position
on a different topic 2 components:
• Description of steps
• Description of quality criteria
• Sufficient intra-class correlation for overall scale and
both sub-scales (ICC > .67)

6/8/2010 37


Results
5
Classroom Significant
online search competence

script "small
Mean post test scores

4 interaction effect:
* group level (F(1,165)=12.41;
only" p<.01; partial
3
* Eta²=.07)
Classroom
2
script
"alteration
1
plenary-small
group level"
0
without small with small
group script group script

6/8/2010 38


Discussion
1. Can small group collaboration scripts be
Ye
s, t
designed to support learners‘ acquisition of
he
yc
online search competence?an!
2. Do positive effects on domain-general
competences (e.g., Internet search
Ye
s, t
competence) also occur under field conditions
he
yd
employing longer learning phases?
o!
3. Can the effects of small-group collaboration
Ob
scripts be amplifiedio a classroom script that
v by
usl
distributes learning activities over the plenary
yn
and the small group level?ot!
6/8/2010 39


Discussion
• Scripting on the small group level can be
neglected when activities are well distributed
over the plenary and the small group level
• When activities are exclusively realized on the
small group level, they need to be scripted with
a small group collaboration script
• no „synergistic scaffolding“ (Tabak, 2004)
through the combination of the two scaffolds

6/8/2010 40


Open questions
• What learning processes contributed to the
result patterns?

• What if other skills than online search
competence are aimed at?

• What if an individual phase would be added?

6/8/2010 41


Summary and overall conclusions
• Computer technologies may help orchestrate learning
processes and scaffolds over the different social planes
• Development of technological tools for orchestrating
learning should be informed by instructional approaches
• Sometimes, successful orchestration means to not play
out the full potential of distributing and scaffolding
learning activities!
• More empirical research on the effects of distributing and
scaffolding activities over the social planes of the
classroom is neccessary
• Importance of „orchestrating learning“ also informal and
purely technology-based learning settings
6/8/2010 42


Thank you for your attention!

Contact information:
ingo.kollar@psy.lmu.de
http://www.psy.lmu.de/ffp_en/persons/ag-fischer/kollar-ingo/index.html

6/8/2010 43

Orchestrating learning: survey

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Orchestrating learning: survey

Similar to Orchestrating learning: survey (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Orchestrating learning: survey