1.
Basic questions in Collaborative Learning Some answers from the Psychology research, and new questions for the study of Collaborative Learning in Serious Games. Margarida ROMERO, Ph.D. Associate Director of E-learning. ESADE, Universitat Ramon Llull. Margarida.Romero@Esade.edu02/11/2011 ESADE. 1

2.
Margarida Romero, Ph. D. Collaborative GBL & Group AwarenessINDEX1. Collaborative Serious Games (C-SG)2. How do we learn together?3. Collaborative game dynamics and learning4. eFinance Game Design (eFG) and Research Objectives

3.
Margarida Romero, Ph. D. Collaborative GBL & Group AwarenessMain questionCan we supportcollaborative learningthrough the use ofSerious Games ?

4.
Margarida Romero, Ph. D. Theoretical Background:0. Collaborative GBL & Group Awareness Collaborative SG Collaborative Serious Games  Learning Game Based Learning (GBL) through Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Collaborative LearningSerious Games Computer- Game Based CollaborativeSupported Gamesfor Learning Learning (GBL) GBL Computer Computer Computer Supported CSCL GBL / Supported GBL. Collaborative SG Supported Learning Serious Games (SG) Collaborative Learning (CSCL)

5.
Margarida Romero, Ph. D. Collaborative GBL & Group AwarenessFactors in (collaborative) learning Contextual factors (collaboration task andenvironment, collaborationdynamics – game rules-, ...) Inter-group factors (identity, competitiveness...) Inter-psychological factors (group awareness, social competencies, ...) Intra-psychological factors (cognitive and metacognitive potential, development stage, motivation, ...)

6.
Margarida Romero, Ph. D. Collaborative GBL & Group AwarenessHow do we learn together? 3 theoretical approaches : transmissive, conductivism, constructivism,  knowledge convergence

7.
Margarida Romero, Ph. D. How do we learn1. Collaborative GBL & Group Awareness together ?Transmisive Approach:Assumes that learning is mainly dependent onthe teacher.Learning is through repetition; the learner is apassive container (tabula rasa), waiting to be filledwith knowledge.

8.
Margarida Romero, Ph. D. How do we learn1. Collaborative GBL & Group Awareness together ?Conductivism:Professors should reinforcestudents’ correct behaviour andknowledge.

9.
Margarida Romero, Ph. D. How do we learn1. Collaborative GBL & Group Awareness together ?Constructivism:A process where individuals construct new knowledge based on priorknowledge and/or experience through the socialinteraction, discovery, and the personal construction of meaning fromexperience (Piaget, 1968, Vygotsky, 1978) Previous knowledge Individual learning in social contexts elicitation (Collaborative learning)

10.
Margarida Romero, Ph. D. How do we learn1. Collaborative GBL & Group Awareness together ?Constructivism  Knowledge convergenceAn increase in common knowledge followingcollaboration, sharing mutual understanding throughsocial interaction (Jeong & Chi, 2007). 3 Knowledge Equivalence1 Knowledge Equivalence + 2 Knowledge Convergence

11.
Margarida Romero, Ph. D. Collaborative GBL & Group AwarenessCollaborative game dynamics andlearning Positive Interdependence VS Competition

12.
Margarida Romero, Ph. D. Collaborative Game2. Collaborative GBL & Group Awareness Dynamics and LearningCollaborative learning depends also on the (learning)context.What are the game rules ?

13.
Margarida Romero, Ph. D. Collaborative Game2. Collaborative GBL & Group Awareness Dynamics and LearningIn interindividual competitive situations sharingknowledge with others is counterproductive...

14.
Margarida Romero, Ph. D. Collaborative Game2. Collaborative GBL & Group Awareness Dynamics and LearningCooperative intragroup positive interdependencehappens when an individual success depends onthe group’s success. However, the gameplay (“performance oriented stimulation”, Bateman & Boon, 2005, p. 27) is reduced in these cooperative situations situations !

15.
Margarida Romero, Ph. D. Collaborative Game2. Collaborative GBL & Group Awareness Dynamics and LearningPlaying together against other teams generetesintragroup positive interdependence and intergroupcompetitiveness. Individual learners collaborating TOGETHER, AGAINST the other small groups Intragroup sharing Knowledge is a productive strategy Positive interdependence through common Learners’ (previous) knowledge performance interest (intragroup cooperation elicitation for facilitating the and intergroup competition) awareness of the MKO

16.
Margarida Romero, Ph. D. Collaborative GBL & Group AwarenesseFinance Game (eFG) Design andResearch Objectives eFinance Game Design Research Objectives

17.
Margarida Romero, Ph. D. eFinance Game Design3. Collaborative GBL & Group Awareness and Research ObjectivesThe eFinance Game is based Are students elicitating their- In the constructivist knowledge previous knowledge ?convergence approach Are students sharing their on- task knowledge ?- In the intragroup positiveinterdependence and intergroup Are students learning more incompetitiveness. groups than individually ?

18.
Margarida Romero, Ph. D. eFinance Game Design3. Collaborative GBL & Group Awareness and Research Objectives1. The students shoulddeclare their previous Are students elicitating theirknowledge in their profile. previous knowledge ? Are students sharing their on- task knowledge ? Are students learning more in groups than individually ? Research Question: How affects knowledge symmetry in the knowledge convergence process?

19.
Margarida Romero, Ph. D. eFinance Game Design3. Collaborative GBL & Group Awareness and Research ObjectivesIn the first individualphase, the students shoulddefine their answers... and Are students elicitating theirtheir level of certainty previous knowledge ? Are students sharing their on- task knowledge ? Are students learning more in groups than individually ? Research Question: Is the level of certainty elicitation having a positive impact on the results ?

20.
Margarida Romero, Ph. D. eFinance Game Design3. Collaborative GBL & Group Awareness and Research ObjectivesThe eFinance Gameincludes 3 phases :•Individual Are students elicitating their•Peer Assessment previous knowledge ?•Collaborative Are students sharing their on- task knowledge ?Results in the three phases Are students learning more inare being compared. groups than individually ? Research Question: Are students’ learning more in the individual, peer assessment, or collaborative phase ?

21.
Your contribution is welcome !Thank you for your attention Margarida ROMERO, Ph.D. Associate Director of E-learning. ESADE Business School. Margarida.Romero@Esade.edu 21