Technology-enhanced interactions analysis II

Christina Schwind, Jurgen Buder, Friedrich W. Hesse

• elaborated opinion formation requires critical thinking

web seems ideal for this, BUT

psychological barrier

• expectations afect information search
• confirmation bias

recommender systems

• principle of maximum similarity (Munro, Hook and Benyon 1999)

confrontation with disagreeing others

• stimulates conflict
• leads to deeper elaboration

Assumptions

• preference-inconsistent recommendations
  • reduce confirmation bias
  • lead to deeper thinking on controversial topics

Procedure

• read introduction on controversial topic
• indicate pre-preference
• receive list of eight information sources

Conditions

• control
• consistent recommendation to pre-preference
• non-consistent recommendation

All received same information, but the difference was the highlighting (none, consistent, non-consistent). Could only select one reading for further study.

Variables

• confirmation bias
  • confirmation bias in two first, not in third. no difference between 1st and 2nd.
• with third, attenuation of preference (first/post)
• more novel arguments were introduced in the essay for non-consistent recommendations condition

Xinghua Wang, Ingo Kollar, Karsten Stegmann, Frank Fischer

Collaboration scripts structure group interaction by specifying task, distributing roles, and sequencing sub-activities.

Follow up study of Weinberger, 2003Weinberger, A. (2003). Scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Effects of social and epistemic cooperation scripts on collaborative knowledge construction..

Flexibility deals with the concerns of coercive scripting (Tchounikine, 2007Tchounikine, P. (2007). Directions to Acknowledge Learners’ Self-organization in CSCL Macro-scripts. Groupware: Design, Implementation, and Use, 247--254. Springer.), being too coercive, no room for self-regulation (Diziol et al., 2009Diziol, D., Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. R. (2009). Using Intelligent Tutor Technology to Implement Adaptive Support for Student Collaboration. Educational Psychology Review, 22(1), 89--102. doi: 10.1007/s10648-009-9116-9.).

Adaptable scripting as a promising approach to realize self-regulation (Leutner 2009). Learners can switch on and off parts of script based on needs.

look at how adaptable scripts help acquisition of

• domain-specific skills
• domain-independent skills

conditions

• unscripted
• non-adaptable
• adaptable

environment

• text-based chat, etc - like Weinberg 2003

phases

• pre-test
• training
• chat
  • reflect on training, plan for treatment
  • learners in third condition can choose roles
  • treatment
    • learn attribution theory by applying theory to cases
  • post-test
    • performance on individual knowledge and skill acquisition
    • analyze new case applying theory
    • first 10 minutes individually
    • then chat with group
      • assess their use of collaboration skills

result

• learner in adaptable scripted outperformed 1 and 2 (no significant difference between 1 and 2)

questions:

• why did you do the learning phase? why not start right away?
  • we think learners need some previous knowledge about the script, otherwise they cannot adapt it
  • how about adaptability during training phase?
  • not very autonomous
• anything about motivation?
  • some questionnaire, no difference
  • high or low?
  • relatively low, especially after the treatment
• did you look at ability? i read that higher-level learners might use support even if they don't need it, lower-level learners won't know to use them? could exacerbate difference
  • have open question to measure learners' knowledge about collaboration
• maybe split up the project in time, to keep the motivation higher

Christof Wecker, Ingo Kollar, Frank Fischer, LMU

not just a “script effect” presentation (I have a script, and it works!), but trying to understand how it works

prepare learners to be responsible citizens who can participate in debates about socio-scientific issues

learners collaborative conduct online searches, collaboration script, inquiry unit

beneficial effects of collaboration scripts

during

• trigger targeted activities
• raise quality of discourse
• enhance group products

after

• domain-general skills

In previous research, faded scripts have not been inferior to continous scripts

Potential mechanisms of script internalization

• what drives the development of domain-general skills when learning with a collaboration script?
  • mere exposure to script prompts?
    • in this case, their practice should not predict online search skills
  • own practice of the strategy suggested by script
    • the learners' own practice should predict outcome
  • observing learner partner's practice of strategy (social learning theory)
    • the learning partner's practice of skills should predict outcome

RQ:

• effect of continuous and faded scripts on students' practice
• how are students and learning partners' practice of strategy suggested by script related to their development of online search skills

method

• instructional unit: genetics
  • intro
  • economic aspect
  • ecological aspect
  • health aspect

used WISE platform to study genetics. three cycles focusing on different aspects. each cycle, three phases:

• study of background info, through WISE (dyads)
• collaborative online search, learners went to look for more detailed information which is up-to-date, collaboratively dyads sitting next to each other, with their own laptops, connected - whatever one person clicked on, was brought up on the other person's screen
• plenary discussion, exchange arguments and information during collaborative online searches

conditions:

• no script
• continuous
• faded

script:

• panel on the left side, showing complementary prompts, adapted according to stage of search
• prompts were different for the two students
• in faded, they gradually became less specific and finally went away

dependent:

• online search skills (pre/post) - describe strategy for online search
• practice of the strategy - recorded screens and dyad's discussions, first ten minutes from three search phases and coded for occurrence of activities
  • selecting a position
  • sketching an initial position to be backed up by online search

results:

• better with script, no difference faded or not
• practice of strategy, with script much better, continuous a bit better than faded
• learning practices highly predicted online search skills, partners' did not

discussion:

• practice of strategy lower than in laboratory studies (below 10%)
  • we are in field setting
  • was just one activity, we didn't expect activity to be 100%
• pattern of effects on continuous and faded script on practice of the strategy mirrors pattern of effects on online search skills
• mere exposure to script does not explain internalization
• one's own practice does to some extent
• observing one's partners does not
• practice only explained a small percentage, must be other mechanisms

limitations

• time limit, ten minutes
• look only for a few activities

future research

• ways to increase practice of strategy (also in field settings) cf Wecker & Fischer in press
• Look for further explanatory variables for script internalization (e. g. mindfulness Salmon & Globerson, 1987)

Teachers should take care that collaboration scripts are actually followed.

Rohit Kumar, Jack Beuth, Carolyn Penstein Rose, CMU

design of tutor prompts for supporting collaborative learning

• software agents that monitor interaction of students
  • social interaction strategies
  • presentation style of prompts

birds eye:

• collaborative learning
• small group communication (communication studies)
• tutorial dialogue → dialog systems → conversational tutors

Kumar 2007 shows

• benefit of collaborative learing
• dynamic support
• combined

problems

• students ignore/abuse agents
• tutors unable to manage attention of the students

Used Basilica as system

Instrumental vs socio-emotional interaction

Interesting questions to ask:

• significant benefits?
  • Kumar et al 2010 ITS
• amount of social behaviour
  • Hua et al 2010 ITS
• why/how & timing of behavior
  • Kumar & Rose 2011 SigDial
• transfer to other domains
• style of presentation
  • this talk

Presentation style

• heteroglossia vs monoglossia
• lexical/grammatical choices
• indicates social positioning of the speaker

heteroglossia

• awareness/acknowledgment of multiple perspectives
• (more like a suggestion, than a command)

learning activity (study)

• mechanical engineering course
• design a better wrench
  • underlying concepts: moment, stress, strength
• collaborative design lab
• team of 3-4 students
• communicate using concertchat
• supported by automated tutors

metrics

• learning outcomes
• perception ratings (of tutor, task)
• idea contributions (by students)
  • count using dictionary
    • how about, can we
    • increase, decrease, steel
  • noisy measure, only estimates
    • for all condition, no bias

results

• no significant for learning
• for perception, heteroglossic made students more happy, and perceived themselves as more happy
• heteroglossic more perceived as “human-like”
• better to use a consistent style
• heteroglossic led to more idea generation
• no relationship between learning and idea generation (unlike Wang 2007)

questions:

• more ideas, but are they good or bad ideas?
  • even bad ideas are useful to learn the tradeoff involved in the design
• more intervention was in the social aspect? task of the tutor is not just social, should support more cognitive, content-specific aspects?
  • constant across all conditions
  • you need cognitive, social and motivational aspects - three tasks of a tutor