1. The document discusses how collaborative game-based learning can be supported through knowledge group awareness. It proposes eliciting students' prior knowledge, knowledge constructed during tasks, and judgments of learning to increase awareness of group members' knowledge. 2. A serious game is described that elicits these three types of knowledge elicitation. Preliminary results show increased interactions but no significant effect on collaboration or performance. Further studies are planned. 3. The document recommends supporting collaborative processes through knowledge awareness widgets, creating intragroup collaboration against intergroup competition, and providing communication tools.

1. Supporting Collaborative Game Based Learning knowledge construction through the use of Knowledge Group Awareness Margarida ROMERO, Ph.D. Associate Director of E-learning. ESADE Business School. [email_address] 20/06/2011 1st GaLA Alignement School. Edinburgh 2011 Can we support collaborative Game Based Learning through the use of Knowledge Group Awareness ?

2. In collaboration with and grateful to... Games and Learning Alliance (GaLA) STELLAR Games Enhanced Learning (GEL) Theme ESADE Law & Business School Direction of Educational Innovation and Academic Quality (DIPQA) ESADE members related to the project : Ricard Serlavós Joan Rodón Joan Massons Susana Mas Jonathan Wareham Esteve Almirall Mireia Usart. Pitch on Time & Serious Game (21th) Ariadna Padrós Laura Castellucci Lecture by Margarida Romero

3. Can we support collaborative learning through the use of Serious Games ? Main question

4. INDEX Theoretical background Serious Games (SG) for collaborative learning Group Awareness in Serious Games Knowledge and metacognitive judgements of learning elicitation Objectives, hypothesis and first results Prospective studies

5. 1. Collaborative SG: Theoretical background

6. Learning Learning as a transformation of a system, arising from the selective retention of (1) behavioral routines or (2) information (Miner & Robinson, 2006) ( Educational Psychology perspective ) Learning as (behaviourism) an adquisition of new knowledge ( tabula rasa , Locke, 17th century) resulting from a stimulus-response association that shapes desirable behaviors (Skinner, 1957) (cognitivism) a change in knowledge stored in memory. Information processing is governed by an internal process including attention, encoding and retrieval (Gagné, 1985) (constructivism) a process where individuals construct new knowledge based on prior knowledge and/or experience through the social interaction, discovery, and the personal construction of meaning from experience (Piaget, 1968, Vygotsky, 1978) (Piaget, 1968, Vygotsky, 1978) Previous knowledge elicitation Individual learning in social contexts (Collaborative learning) Theoretical Background: Collaborative SG 1.

7. Learning Collaborative Learning Individual Learning Theoretical Background: Collaborative SG 1.

8. Learning Collaborative Learning Collaborative Learning (CL) as an individual knowledge construction process in interaction with 2 or more other students engaged in a learning task with common goals. Panitz (1996) literature review on CL identifies 50 benefits of CL on social (knowledge elicitation through verbalization, argumentation, social support, interdependence,...), psychological (motivation, positive orientation,...), academic (learning from More Knowledgeable Others –MKO- in a context of knowledge asymmetry –ZPD-, involvement, performance,...) and assessment (allows peer feedback and assessment,...). CL pitfalls : Monitoring efforts (Jacobson & Azevedo, 2008) and organisational cost of collaboration (Kirschner, Paas & Kirschner, 2009) Social interaction could not be taken for granted (Kreijns, Kirschner & Jochems, 2003) and social interaction requires a certain stage of group development (confidence, feeling of a community...) Lack of contribution of part of the group members (lurkers...). of part of the group members (lurkers...). of part of the group members (lurkers...). of part of the group members (lurkers...). Learners’ (previous) knowledge elicitation for facilitating the awareness of the MKO Interdependence through common performance interest (intragroup cooperation and intergroup competition) Guided social interaction and knowledge elicitation, and peer feedback process Theoretical Background: Collaborative SG 1. Individual accountability (Wang & Woo, 2010)

9. Learning Collaborative Learning Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Computer Supported Learning Individual Learning Theoretical Background: Collaborative SG 1.

10. Learning Collaborative Learning Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) as an emerging branch of the learning sciences concerned with studying how computers mediates the CL process . Computers as “mediating artifacts” in the CL process. Stahl (2010): “Networked computers allow students to work, learn, explore and think in small groups of peers (...) to make their thinking visible, subject to other perspectives, checking, reflection, persistence, audience” Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Computer Supported Learning Computers as cognitive and metacognitive tools allowing to elicitate the knowledge construction process and the metacognitive process (Judgement of Learning, Learning Strategies,....) (Azevedo, 2005) Theoretical Background: Collaborative SG 1.

11. Learning Collaborative GBL Game Based Learning (GBL) CSCL GBL / Collaborative SG Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Collaborative Learning Computer Supported GBL. Serious Games (SG) Computer Supported Learning Individual Learning Theoretical Background: Collaborative SG 1.

12. Theoretical Background: Collaborative SG Learning Collaborative GBL Game Based Learning (GBL) CSCL GBL / Collaborative SG Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Collaborative Learning Computer Supported GBL. Serious Games (SG) Computer Supported Learning Collaborative Serious Games  Game Based Learning (GBL) through Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Serious Games  Computer-Supported Games for Learning 1.

13. 2. Serious Games for Collaborative Learning

14. Collaborative Serious Games  Game Based Learning (GBL) through Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Collaborative SG considers games allows learners to construct knowledge by interacting with information, tools, and materials as well as by collaborating with other learners within the game. In Collaborative Serious Games , are students “ learning alone , together” (Eastmond, 1995) ? collaborating towards a common goal ? competing with or against other students or groups ? Serious Games for Collaborative Learning 2.

15. CL requires sharing and negociating knowledge among learners. Despite competition rises challenge and motivation (Mawdesley, Long, Al-Jibouri & Scott, 2010), competition does not promote knowledge elicitation and sharing with the competitors... Multiplayer Serious Games situations does not promote CL if individuals are only competing against each other Serious Games for Collaborative Learning 2. Individual learner / player Small Group Level (Intragroup) Group Level (Intergroup) Other Small Groups Games are defined as competitive activities (against the computer, another playr, or oneself) (Lindsey, 2004) Then, how could we combine competition and knowledge sharing for collaborative learning ?

16. Multiplayer Serious Game. Situation I: Interindividual competitition Serious Games for Collaborative Learning 2. Individuals playing AGAINST other individuals in a multiplayer SG. Could we consider this game as a Collaborative Learning game ? Individuals competing AGAINST each other Collaborative share of Knowledge is conterproductive Individual learner #1 Individual learner #2

17. Serious Games for Collaborative Learning 2. Small group #1 Small groups playing TOGETHER, AGAINST other small groups in a collaborative SG Small group #2 Small groups competing AGAINST other groups Integroups sharing Knowledge is conterproductive Individual learner #1 Individual learner #2 Individual learner #3 Individual learner #4 Individual learners collaborating TOGETHER, AGAINST the other small groups Intragroup sharing Knowledge is a productive strategy Learners’ (previous) knowledge elicitation for facilitating the awareness of the MKO Positive interdependence through common performance interest (intragroup cooperation and intergroup competition) Multiplayer Serious Game. Situation II: Intergroup competitition

18. 3. Promoting (meta)knowledge elicitation through Group Awareness Widgets

19. In a Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) or work situation, Group Awareness (GA) is an understanding of the state and activities of others which provides a context for your own activity (Dourish and Belloti, 1992) Knowledge Group Awareness 3. Small group #1 Is my team-mate more knowledgeable than me (MKO)? Does he have previous knowledge and experience on the task ? What were his individual answers to the collaborative task ? How to share Knowledge between the members of a distributed team working in a CSCL task ? Group Awareness needs in the context of intragroup Knowledge sharing. Learners’ need to be aware of their teammates’ knowledge.

20. Knowledge Group Awareness 3. Group Awareness could be focused on specific collaboration aspects. Based on Carroll and colleagues (2003) and Engelmann, Dehler, Boemer and Buder (2009) and Collazos et al (2002) we consider 4 types of awareness: Social awareness : consciousness of the presence and state of the team-mates Action awareness : information about the actions which are currently being carried out by the group and its members (primarily important in the context of synchronous collaboration) Activity awareness : consciousness of the activity of the team-mates (that has been performed, or to be performed to achieve the task) (Shared) Knowledge (Group) Awareness : consciousness of the team-mates knowledge and the group knowledge construction process. Brennan and Williams (1995) used the term Feeling of Anothers' Knowing (FOAK) to refer to the KGA.

21. Knowledge Group Awareness 3. Group Awareness Widgets (GAw) are software tools or functionnalities providing the learners with social information promoting group awareness (Kreijns & Kirschner, 2002; Jermann et al., 2001) For promoting Knowledge Group Awareness (KGA), the GAw requires Knowledge Explicitation (KE) by the learners. We consider 3 types of KE: 1. Previous knowledge elicitation 2. Knowledge (Elicited through the task) 3. Judgement of Learning (JoL) We expect the collective display (GAw) of this 3 types of KE to increase the knowledge group awareness and enhance the collaborative learning process.

22. Knowledge Group Awareness 3. 3 types of KE in the eFinance Game (Romero & Usart, 2011) : 3. Judgement of Learning (JoL) defined as “an awareness of not knowing or understanding everything read” (Azevedo et al., 2005). 1. Previous knowledge elicitation 2. Knowledge (Elicited through the task) We expect the collective display (GAw) of this 3 types of KE to increase the knowledge group awareness and enhance the collaborative learning process.

23. Knowledge Group Awareness 3. Cyril Judgement of Learning is low … Margarida could be aware that his not sure about his answer (and explain him de right answer ...) Margarida Judgement of Learning is high … that could helps Cyril to accept her advice as the More Knowledgeable Other (MKO) ;-) JOL refers to the feelings a student has regarding his/her knowledge for a specific subject (Hart, 1965), it is defined by the student using a Confidence Level. Research Hypothesis : We expect the JOL elicitation and collective display to improve the CL process, by increasing the Knowledge Group Awareness (KGA).

24. 4. First results and prospectives

25. First results and prospectives 4. Research Hypothesis : We expect the JOL elicitation and collective display to improve the CL process, by increasing the Knowledge Group Awareness (KGA), but also promote a higher number of interactions. Without JOL (IV ) Control Group With JOL (IV) Experimental Group Collaborative Learning Normal performance Higher performance Interactions Normal level of interactions Higher number of interactions

26. First results and prospectives 4. Participants : 16 adults enroled in an introductory course to finance, distributed into two independent groups (JOL and Control group) Without JOL (IV ) Control Group With JOL (IV) Experimental Group Collaborative Learning t (14) =.683, p =.586 M =5.25, SD =.886 M =5.50, SD =.535 Interactions t (14) =.683, p =.03 M =0.75, SD =.463 M =1.75, SD =1.669

27. First results and prospectives 4. Despite the reduced number of students of the first study, we observe better results (even if not statiscally significative) in groups using the knowledge Elicitation tool and a statistally significative increase of interaction. 3 new studies have been carry out after this first study involving more than 50 students. … and you are invited to come to the demo of the eFinance Game this evening (20h).

28. Can we support collaborative learning through the use of Serious Games ? 3 recommendations for SG support of CL Support CL process through GAw for supporting the Knowledge and metacognitive beliefs elicitation (JOL) Create Intragroup CL against intergroup Competition Provide communication tools 4. First results and prospectives

29. Supporting Collaborative Game Based Learning knowledge construction through the use of Knowledge Group Awareness Margarida ROMERO, Ph.D. Associate Director of E-learning. ESADE Business School. [email_address] 20/06/2011 1st GaLA Alignement School. Edinburgh 2011 Thank you for your attention Today 20pm Let's come test the eFinance Game ! Tomorrow 12:30pm Mireia Usart Pitch on SG and Time