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.

Tracking Tools In Computer Learning Environments

809 views

Published on

Tracking Tools In Computer Learning Environments

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to like this

Tracking Tools In Computer Learning Environments

  1. 1. Tracking tools for Computer Learning EnvironmentsMargarida ROMERO. September 2012. ESADE Tracking Systems in Teacher Content/Learning Management Systems , r, che e te as Group “CMS store in their internal databases r th enes Fo ar large log files with the students’ activities in the course, and have a built- Aw ss in student monitoring feature that p s, ne Learner ou ware enables the instructors to view some gr statistical data, such as the number of For up A Group activity accesses made Gro by the students to each resource, the history of pages visited, and the number ss Learners’ activity of hits for every day of the course. r, arene However, this information is usually a rne Aw provided in a tabular format, often le e) the edg incomprehensible, with a poor logical For o l w organization, and is difficult to interpret. (Kn Computer As a result, web log data is very rarely used by distance learning instructors” Aw Learning (Mazza & Dimitrova 2005) aren Environment For this reason is important to provide e (CLE) Group Awareness tools for ss visualizing the learners and group Log system activities. Tracking system
  2. 2. Tracking tools for Computer Learning Environments Awareness inMargarida ROMERO. September 2012. ESADE Content/Learning Management Systems , “Mirroring group members information is Teacher essential for online collaboration, such as who they are, what they do, their roles r, and responsibilities, status, presence or che e te as Group absence of members, or the state of r th enes Fo ar various group processes that group members know when they work together Aw ss (Jermann, Soller & Mühlenbrock, 2001). In p s, ne Learner 1996, the group awareness pioneers gr ou ware Greenberg, Gutwin and Cockburn For up A Group activity suggested that there are four types of Gro group-awareness: informal, social, group- structural and workspace. Informal awareness refers to the general ss Learners’ activity ene knowledge of who is around and what r, ar a rne Aw they are doing including ones self. Social le e) awareness refers to presence and co- the edg presence of the team-members; this is the For o l w degree they perceive themselves and (Kn Computer other as “real‟. Group-Structural Aw Aw Learning awareness refers to the knowledge about activities and team-members‟ are are Environment organisation. Workspace awareness ne s n refers to what‟ s happening on the (CLE) interface during team-members‟ ss Log system interaction. According to Jongsawat and his colleagues (2009), it is stated that increasing the amount of group awareness cues increases the groups ability to Tracking system complete the task effectively” ( Lambropoulos & Romero 2011)
  3. 3. Tracking tools for Computer Learning EnvironmentsMargarida ROMERO. September 2012. ESADE Impact of Group Awareness in the teamwork, Teacher Chavez & Romero (2012), the group awareness tools supports “the perception of participation” and the r, “cognitive awareness development by participants in che e te as Group a collaborative activity”. r th enes Fo ar Aw ne ss Learner p s, ou ware gr w For up A Group activity ro Gr ss Learners’ activity r, arene a rne Aw le e) the edg For o l w (Kn Computer Aw Learning aren Environment e (CLE) ss Log system Tracking system
  4. 4. Tracking tools for Computer Learning EnvironmentsMargarida ROMERO. September 2012. ESADE References Chávez, J., & Romero, M. (2012). Group Awareness, Learning, and Participation in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL). In Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences Journal, Elsevier, Volume 46 (pp 3068–3073). Greenberg S., Gutwin C. & Cockburn A. (1996). Awareness through fisheye views in relaxed WYSIWIS groupware. In Proceedings of the Graphics Interface Conference, 28-38, Toronto, Canada. Morgan-Kaufmann. Jermann, P., Soller A., & Mühlenbrock M. (2001). From mirroring to guiding: A review of the state of art technology for supporting collaborative learning. (P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings,, Kai Hakkarainen, Ed.).Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (Euro-CSCL 2001). 324-331. Jongsawat, N. & Premchaiswadi, W. (2009). Group Awareness Information in Web-Based Group Decision Support System. SMC 2009: 370-375. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, San Antonio, TX, USA, 11-14 October 2009. Romero, M. & Lambropoulos, N. (2011). Collaboration awareness tool impact in organisational and knowledge convergence: a macro, mid and micro (3m) analysis for micro-messaging. Internal report. Euro-CAT-CSCL. Mazza R., Dimitrova V., (2005). Generation of Graphical Representations of Student Tracking Data in Course Management Systems. In 9th IEEE International Conference on Information Visualisation. London 6-8 July 2005. pp. 253-258. ISBN 0-7695- 2397-8. Romero, M. (2012). The Use of the Collaboration Awareness Tool EUROCAT in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. In Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences Journal, Elsevier, Volume 46 (pp 3046–3050).

×